Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


114th Congress  }                                       { Report
                              SENATE                     
2d Session      }                                       { 114-255
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 2943]

                                   on

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                                     


                                     


                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                  
                  

                                     

                                     

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
        
        
        
        


114th Congress }                                        {   Report
                               SENATE                         
 2d Session    }                                        {  114-255
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 469

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 2943]

                                   on

     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     



                                     


                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                             _________ 
                             
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                  
 20-113 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2016       
 
 
 
  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

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

                                  (ii)
                                  

  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
Purpose of the Bill..............................................     1
Committee Overview...............................................     2
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority 
  Implication....................................................     3
Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)...........................     3
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................     5
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................     5
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     5
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)...............     5
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................     5
        Distributed Common Ground System--Army (sec. 111)........     5
        Multiyear procurement authority for UH-60M/HH-60M Black 
          Hawk helicopters (sec. 112)............................     6
        Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64E Apache 
          helicopters (sec. 113).................................     6
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................     7
        Incremental funding for detail design and construction of 
          LHA replacement ship designated LHA-8 (sec. 121).......     7
        Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122)..........................     7
        Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123)..............     8
        Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding 
          contracts (sec. 124)...................................     9
        Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced 
          Arresting Gear program (sec. 125)......................    11
        Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) 
          and USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec. 126).................    13
        Limitation on availability of funds for Tactical Combat 
          Training System Increment II (sec. 127)................    14
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    14
        Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for 
          retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 141).................    14
        Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A-
          10 aircraft in storage status (sec. 142)...............    15
        Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C-5 
          aircraft (sec. 143)....................................    15
        Repeal of requirement to preserve F-117 aircraft in 
          recallable condition (sec. 144)........................    16
        Limitation on availability of funds for EC-130H Compass 
          Call recapitalization program (sec. 145)...............    16
        Limitation on availability of funds for Joint 
          Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 
          recapitalization program (sec. 146)....................    17
    Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters....    18
        Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of 
          aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151).....    18
        Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of 
          certain cluster munitions and report on Department of 
          Defense policy and cluster munitions (sec. 152)........    18
        Medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and 
          reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 153).....................    19
    Budget Items.................................................    19
        Army.....................................................    19
            Survivability Counter Measures.......................    19
            Stryker Upgrades.....................................    20
            M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)........................    20
            M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)........................    20
            Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine 
              Modification.......................................    20
            Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun.............    20
            Army ammunition reduction............................    20
            High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle..................    21
            Modification of in Service Equipment.................    21
            Warfighter Information Network-Tactical..............    21
            Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military 
              Intelligence Program)..............................    21
            Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar....................    21
            Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight 
              Laser Designator Rangefinder)......................    22
            Counterfire Radars...................................    22
            Maneuver Control System..............................    22
            Automated Data Processing Equipment..................    22
            Army Contract Writing System.........................    22
            Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water............    22
            Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems.................    22
            Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies....    23
            Army Watercraft Extended Service Program.............    23
            Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other 
              Procurement, Army 3)...............................    23
        Navy.....................................................    23
            F-35B Spares.........................................    23
            Tomahawk missile.....................................    23
            AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.......    24
            Ordnance support equipment...........................    24
            Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction...........    24
            Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.......................    24
            Littoral Combat Ship.................................    25
            Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)....................    25
            Destroyer modernization..............................    25
            LCS common mission modules equipment.................    25
            Surveillance towed array sensor system...............    25
            Surface electronic warfare improvement program.......    25
            Minesweeping system replacement......................    26
        Air Force................................................    26
            UH-1N helicopter replacement program.................    26
            Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades........    26
            Budget request realignments..........................    27
        Defense Wide.............................................    27
            Mentor Protege reduction.............................    27
            MH-60M training loss replacement.....................    28
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    28
            AC-130J A-kit procurement............................    28
    Items of Special Interest....................................    28
        Aegis radar improvements.................................    28
        Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload....................    29
        Army Modular Handgun System (MHS)........................    29
        B-21 supply chain........................................    30
        B-52 radar replacement program...........................    30
        C-130 engine enhancements................................    30
        Comptroller General of the United States assessment of 
          Department of Defense F-35 deployment planning efforts.    31
        DDG-51 destroyer production gap..........................    32
        Department of Defense report on improvements to the 
          munitions requirements process.........................    32
        E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet 
          Block 40/45 upgrade....................................    32
        EA-18G Growler requirement...............................    33
        Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat 
          teams..................................................    33
        F-16 mission training centers............................    33
        High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 
          ambulance..............................................    34
        Munitions availability...................................    34
        Navy maritime security barriers..........................    35
        Ohio-class replacement submarine program.................    35
        Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)......................    36
        Patriot Product Improvement..............................    36
        Radiation Detection Technology...........................    36
        Report on disposition options for previously modified C-
          130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) aircraft.....    36
        Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in 
          relation to use of 75MM blank rounds...................    37
        Shipbuilding guarantees..................................    37
        Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement...........    38
        USAF Eagle Vision program................................    38
        V-22 defensive weapon system.............................    39
        Virginia-class submarines................................    39
        Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)..........    40
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............    43
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    43
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)...............    43
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    43
        Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense 
          laboratories for research and development of 
          technologies for military missions (sec. 211)..........    43
        Making permanent authority for defense research and 
          development rapid innovation program (sec. 212)........    44
        Authorization for National Defense University and Defense 
          Acquisition University to enter into cooperative 
          research and development agreements (sec. 213).........    44
        Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214)......    44
        Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research 
          programs and activities of the Department of Defense 
          science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 
          215)...................................................    45
        Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216)........    46
        Limitation on B-21 Engineering and Manufacturing 
          Development program funds (sec. 217)...................    47
        Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive 
          information to contractors performing under contracts 
          with Department of Defense federally funded research 
          and development centers (sec. 218).....................    47
        Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense 
          Advanced Research Projects Agency and the service 
          academies (sec. 219)...................................    48
        Modification of authority for use of operation and 
          maintenance funds for unspecified minor construction 
          projects consisting of laboratory revitalization (sec. 
          220)...................................................    48
    Budget Items.................................................    49
        Materials technology.....................................    49
        Sensors and electronic survivability.....................    49
        Social science research..................................    49
        Army vehicle prototyping.................................    50
        Electronic warfare technology............................    50
        Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology.    50
        Small Arms Improvement...................................    51
        Army contract writing system.............................    51
        Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army................    51
        Aircraft survivability development.......................    51
        Technical information activities.........................    51
        Aerostat joint project-COCOM exercise....................    51
        Combat vehicle improvement programs......................    52
        Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2............    52
        Distributed Common Ground/Surface System.................    52
        Undersea warfare applied research........................    52
        Power projection advanced technology.....................    52
        Capable manpower and power and energy....................    53
        Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle...............    53
        Littoral Combat Ship mission modules.....................    53
        Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)........................    53
        Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle..................    53
        Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits.........    54
        Management, technical, and international support.........    54
        Aerospace propulsion.....................................    54
        High energy laser joint technology office................    54
        Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications.........    55
        Electronic combat technology.............................    55
        Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration......    55
        B-21 long range strike bomber............................    56
        Operationally Responsive Space program...................    56
        Advanced Pilot Training Program..........................    56
        KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program...........    56
        Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM......    56
        B-2 Defensive Management System Modernization............    57
        MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing control system........    57
        Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM)...................    57
        Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES).......    57
        Budget request realignments..............................    57
        Operational energy capability improvement increase.......    58
        Post intercept assessment acceleration...................    58
        Israeli cooperative missile defense program..............    58
        Ground based interceptor booster acceleration............    58
        Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction...................    59
        Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation.......    59
        High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned 
          aircraft...............................................    59
        Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........    59
        Directed energy systems prototyping......................    59
        Development test and evaluation..........................    60
        Information Systems Security Program at the National 
          Security Agency........................................    60
        Sharkseer 2.0............................................    61
        MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.............................    62
        Sharkseer email protection...............................    62
    Items of Special Interest....................................    63
        Active protection systems................................    63
        Advanced airlift airship technology......................    63
        Advanced weapons technology..............................    65
        Assessment of status of little used research and 
          development infrastructure assets......................    65
        Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition........    65
        Conformal phased array antennas..........................    66
        Department of Defense technology offset program to build 
          and maintain the military technological superiority of 
          the United States......................................    66
        Digital polarimetric radar development...................    68
        Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories...    68
        Human augmentation technology for industrial operations..    68
        Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities......................    69
        Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis....    69
        Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery 
          technology.............................................    70
        Laser weapon system demonstrator.........................    70
        Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control 
          test capability........................................    70
        Long-range threat detection..............................    71
        Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio......................    71
        Military medical photonics...............................    71
        MQ-XX....................................................    71
        Night Vision Device Reset................................    72
        Night Vision Reset.......................................    73
        Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and 
          biological weapons facilities at Aberdeen Proving 
          Ground.................................................    73
        Review of balance between Department of Defense 
          developmental and operational test and evaluation......    73
        Silicon Carbide Technology...............................    75
        Simulation training......................................    75
        Single appropriation for developmental test and 
          evaluation and test resources..........................    76
        Study on best practices for laboratory management 
          techniques.............................................    76
        Subsurface threat detection systems......................    78
        The improved turbine engine program (ITEP) for Army 
          rotary wing aviation...................................    78
        Third offset technology--industrial base concerns........    78
        Troposcatter Systems.....................................    79
        United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High 
          Energy Lazer...........................................    79
        Working capital fund efficiencies........................    79
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................    80
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    80
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)...............    80
    Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment.......................    80
        Modified reporting requirement related to installations 
          energy management (sec. 302)...........................    80
        Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military 
          installations (sec. 303)...............................    80
        Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 
          304)...................................................    80
        Linear LED lamps (sec. 305)..............................    81
    Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................    81
        Deployment prioritization and readiness of Army units 
          (sec. 311).............................................    81
        Revision of guidance related to corrosion control and 
          prevention executives (sec. 312).......................    81
        Repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks 
          at Naval shipyards (sec. 313)..........................    81
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    81
        Modifications to Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress 
          (sec. 321).............................................    81
        Report on HH-60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter 
          (CRH) program (sec. 322)...............................    82
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................    82
        Repurposing and reuse of surplus military firearms (sec. 
          331)...................................................    82
        Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage 
          and utility uniforms (sec. 332)........................    82
        Hazard assessments related to new construction of 
          obstructions on military installations (sec. 333)......    83
        Plan for modernized Air Force dedicated adversary air 
          training enterprise (sec. 334).........................    83
        Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness 
          of the Air Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335)......    84
        Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings 
          with accessible cords in military housing units in 
          which children reside (sec. 336).......................    84
        Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337).............    85
        STARBASE Program (sec. 338)..............................    85
        Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers 
          of vehicles of online transportation network companies 
          (sec. 339).............................................    85
        Women's military service memorials and museums (sec. 340)    85
    Budget Items.................................................    85
        Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness 
          unfunded priorities increases..........................    85
        Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 
          increases..............................................    86
        Army advertising reduction...............................    87
        Army museum reduction....................................    88
        United States Southern Command unfunded priorities 
          increase...............................................    88
        Printing reductions to active service components and 
          defense-wide...........................................    88
        Distributed Common Ground System--Army...................    88
        Foreign currency fluctuations............................    89
        Bulk fuel savings........................................    89
        Army National Guard psychological health increase........    90
        Army National Guard underexecution reduction.............    90
        Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases.............    90
        Navy enterprise information reduction....................    90
        United States Southern Command unfunded priorities 
          increase in security programs..........................    91
        Naval History and Heritage Command reduction.............    91
        Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases.....    91
        Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard 
          readiness unfunded priorities increases................    92
         Air Force advertising reduction.........................    92
        Special Operations Command civilian compensation.........    92
        Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office......    92
        Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner 
          engagement programs....................................    93
        Funding for impact aid...................................    93
        Office of Economic Adjustment reduction..................    93
        Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and 
          closure planning and support...........................    94
        Department of Defense rewards program reduction..........    94
        Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit...........    94
        National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
          Service................................................    94
        Funding for waiver of long-term temporary duty travel per 
          diem rates.............................................    94
        Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational 
          Concept................................................    95
    Items of Special Interest....................................    95
        Additive manufacturing recommendations...................    95
        Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base..    96
        Advertising activities among the military service 
          components.............................................    96
        Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program...............    97
        Army requirements for footwear technology................    97
        Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements    98
        Assessment on duplication and inefficiencies within the 
          Defense Logistics Agency and United States 
          Transportation Command.................................    99
        Battery standardization plan.............................   100
        Civil Air Patrol (CAP)...................................   100
        Clarification of the Department of Defense's authority to 
          perform environmental response actions on other 
          agency's lands in the case of aircraft crashes.........   101
        Clarification on the importance of operation and 
          maintenance savings....................................   101
        Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness 
          model..................................................   101
        Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on 
          military installations.................................   102
        Comptroller General review of F-22A global force posture.   103
        Cyber implementation at the combat training centers......   104
        Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids.................   104
        Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs..................   104
        Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial 
          carriers...............................................   105
        Demilitarization of conventional munitions...............   106
        Department of Defense transportation protective services.   107
        Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy.   107
        Department of Defense's use of executive agents..........   108
        Development and procurement of combat personal protective 
          equipment for different body types.....................   108
        Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training 
          (IRT) program..........................................   109
        Energy resiliency metrics................................   110
        Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate 
          pricing................................................   110
        Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement 
          process major range test base facilities...............   111
        Expanding the number of younger cyber security 
          professionals on Department of Defense contracts.......   112
        Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic 
          division officer course................................   112
        Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases......   113
        Flame resistant uniforms.................................   114
        Foreign language training report.........................   114
        Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover 
          reductions.............................................   115
        Installation security....................................   116
        Item unique identification implementation and 
          verification...........................................   117
        Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning........   117
        Modernization of emergency power generation..............   118
        National Test and Training Range Improvements............   118
        New Hampshire water contamination........................   119
        Objective training readiness reporting...................   119
        Physical security of sensitive conventional ammunition 
          items at Department of Defense and contractor locations   120
        Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support 
          defense operations.....................................   121
        Rebuilding readiness.....................................   121
        Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts   122
        Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial 
          base...................................................   123
        Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, 
          Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps servicemembers.......   123
        Report on reset and sustainment of material handling 
          equipment..............................................   124
        Requirements model for restoration and modernization 
          funds at Department of Defense installations...........   124
        Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP...   125
        Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces...................   125
        Software-based foreign language training and sustainment.   126
        Study on power storage capacity requirement..............   126
        Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms 
          weapons skills and combat readiness....................   127
        Third party financed energy projects.....................   127
        Third party financed energy savings performance contracts   129
        Warfighter technology....................................   129
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   131
    Subtitle A--Active Personnel.................................   131
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   131
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   131
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   131
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the reserves (sec. 412)................................   131
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   132
        Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   132
        Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   132
        Technical corrections to annual authorization for 
          personnel strengths (sec. 416).........................   133
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   133
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   133
    Budget Items.................................................   133
        Military personnel funding changes.......................   133
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   135
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   135
        Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general 
          and flag officers (sec. 501)...........................   135
        Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag 
          officer grade for various positions in the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 502).............................................   135
        Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables 
          (sec. 503).............................................   136
        Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or 
          advanced education upon original appointment as a 
          commissioned officer (sec. 504)........................   136
        Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of 
          particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion 
          list (sec. 505)........................................   137
        Promotion eligibility period for officers whose 
          confirmation of appointment is delayed due to 
          nonavailability to the Senate of probative information 
          under control of non-Department of Defense agencies 
          (sec. 506).............................................   137
        Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507)..............   137
        Modification of definitions relating to joint officer 
          management (sec. 508)..................................   137
        Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without 
          regard to requirement for retirement for years of 
          service (sec. 509).....................................   137
        Extension of force management authorities allowing 
          enhanced flexibility for officer personnel management 
          (sec. 510).............................................   138
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   138
        Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of 
          service of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
          (sec. 521).............................................   138
        Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to 
          be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522)...   138
        Rights and protections available to military technicians 
          (sec. 523).............................................   139
        Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs 
          for the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524).........   139
        Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard 
          technicians performing Active Guard and Reserve duty 
          (sec. 525).............................................   139
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   139
        Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for 
          standards and qualifications for military specialties 
          within the Armed Forces (sec. 531).....................   139
        Leave matters (sec. 532).................................   140
        Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in 
          connection with leave canceled due to contingency 
          operations (sec. 533)..................................   140
        Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired 
          list (sec. 534)........................................   140
        Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings 
          preventing members of the Armed Forces from carrying 
          out otherwise lawful duties based on member gender 
          (sec. 535).............................................   141
        Board for the Correction of Military Records and 
          Discharge Review Board matters (sec. 536)..............   141
        Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to 
          qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components 
          of the Armed Forces (sec. 537).........................   141
    Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters....   142
        PART I--Retaliation......................................   142
            Report to complainants of resolution of 
              investigations into retaliation (sec. 541).........   142
            Training for Department of Defense personnel on 
              sexual assault trauma in individuals claiming 
              retaliation in connection with reports of sexual 
              assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 542).............   142
            Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault 
              prevention and response efforts of the Armed Forces 
              of information on complaints of retaliation in 
              connection with reports of sexual assault in the 
              Armed Forces (sec. 543)............................   142
            Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed 
              Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in 
              connection with reports of sexual assault in the 
              Armed Forces (sec. 544)............................   142
        PART II--Other Military Justice Matters..................   143
            Discretionary authority for military judges to 
              designate an individual to assume the rights of the 
              victim of an offense under the Uniform Code of 
              Military Justice when the victim is a minor, 
              incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546).   143
            Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of 
              victims under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
              (sec. 547).........................................   143
            Effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial 
              (sec. 548).........................................   143
            Pilot programs on military justice career track for 
              judge advocates (sec. 549).........................   144
            Modification of definition of sexual harassment for 
              purposes of investigations of complaints of 
              harassment by commanding officers (sec. 550).......   144
            Extension and clarification of annual reports 
              regarding sexual assault involving members of the 
              armed forces (sec. 551)............................   144
            Expansion of authority to execute certain military 
              instruments (sec. 552).............................   145
            United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
              (sec. 553).........................................   145
    Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition.......   145
        Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or 
          education (sec. 561)...................................   145
        Modification of program to assist members of the Armed 
          Forces in obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562)   146
        Access to Department of Defense installations of 
          institutions of higher education providing certain 
          advising and student support services (sec. 563).......   146
        Priority processing of applications for Transportation 
          Worker Identification Credentials for members 
          undergoing discharge or release from the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 564).............................................   146
    Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family 
      Readiness Matters..........................................   147
        Continuation of authority to assist local educational 
          agencies that benefit dependents of members of the 
          Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees (sec. 571)...................................   147
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          572)...................................................   147
        Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573).........................   147
        One-year extension of authorities relating to the 
          transition and support of military dependent students 
          to local educational agencies (sec. 574)...............   148
        Comptroller General of the United States analysis of 
          unsatisfactory conditions and overcrowding at public 
          schools on military installations (sec. 575)...........   148
        Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation 
          assistance to members of the Armed Forces and their 
          families (sec. 576)....................................   148
        Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military 
          families and homes (sec. 577)..........................   148
        Background checks for employees of agencies and schools 
          providing elementary and secondary education for 
          Department of Defense dependents (sec. 578)............   149
        Support for programs providing camp experience for 
          children of military families (sec. 579)...............   149
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          Exceptional Family Member Program (sec. 580)...........   149
        Repeal of Advisory Council on Dependents, Education (sec. 
          581)...................................................   150
    Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards...........................   150
        Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles 
          S. Kettles for acts of valor during the Vietnam war 
          (sec. 586).............................................   150
        Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. 
          Rose for action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 
          587)...................................................   150
        Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service 
          Cross to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis 
          LaFleur for acts of valor during World War II (sec. 
          588)...................................................   150
        Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, 
          United States Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589)   150
    Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters..........   150
        Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female 
          citizens and persons (sec. 591)........................   150
        Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense 
          Acquisition Corps (sec. 592)...........................   151
        Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine 
          Corps in integrating women into military occupational 
          specialties and units recently opened to women (sec. 
          593)...................................................   151
        Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces 
          for women in combat arms units (sec. 594)..............   152
        Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States 
          Air Force Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595)   152
        Extension of limitation on reduction in number of 
          military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with 
          service review agencies (sec. 596).....................   152
    Items of Special Interest....................................   153
        Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education......   153
        Comptroller General of the United States assessment of 
          Department of Navy personnel strategies for unmanned 
          systems................................................   153
        Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot 
          programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of 
          members of the armed forces............................   154
        Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses 
          involving unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces.   155
        CONUS Education Options Assessment.......................   155
        Department of Defense consultation with outside experts 
          to improve sexual assault prevention and response 
          programs...............................................   156
        Department of Defense identity numbers...................   156
        Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation 
          Examinations...........................................   156
        DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on 
          hazing.................................................   157
        Employment of members of the National Guard, Reserves, 
          and veterans of the Armed Forces.......................   157
        Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence 
          personnel..............................................   158
        Enlisted representation..................................   158
        F-35A maintainer shortage report.........................   158
        Impact of basic allowance for housing changes on the 
          Military Housing Privatization Initiative..............   159
        Military to mariner transition...........................   159
        Pilot deficiencies.......................................   160
        Process required for adjudication of suspension or 
          termination of institutions with a voluntary education 
          partnership memoranda of understanding with Department 
          of Defense.............................................   160
        Religious accommodation in the military..................   161
        Report on litigation billets.............................   161
        Sexual assault prevention strategy.......................   162
        Space available seating for veterans with service-
          connected disabilities.................................   162
        Transition Assistance Program and reserve component 
          members................................................   162
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   163
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   163
        Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   163
        Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of 
          basic pay payable to members of the Armed Forces by pay 
          grade for annual or other pay periods (sec. 602).......   163
        Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 
          rates of basic allowance for housing under certain 
          circumstances (sec. 603)...............................   163
        Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604).........   163
        Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury 
          rehabilitation pay (sec. 605)..........................   165
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   165
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)..............   165
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)...   165
        One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities 
          for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................   165
        One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 
          consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus 
          authorities (sec. 614).................................   165
        One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 
          other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615).....   166
        Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, 
          incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 616)........   166
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   166
        Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of 
          Reserves to attend inactive duty training outside of 
          normal commuting distance (sec. 621)...................   166
        Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of 
          certain members of the Armed Forces undergoing a 
          permanent change of station (sec. 622).................   166
    Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 
      Benefits...................................................   167
    Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform.....   167
            Election period for members in the service academies 
              and inactive Reserves to participate in the 
              modernized retirement system (sec. 631)............   167
            Effect of separation of members from the uniformed 
              services on participation in the Thrift Savings 
              Plan (sec. 632)....................................   167
            Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 
              12 years of service (sec. 633).....................   167
            Combat-related special compensation coordinating 
              amendment (sec. 634)...............................   167
            Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as 
              default contributions of members of the Armed 
              Forces participating in the Thrift Savings Plan 
              under retired pay reform (sec. 635)................   168
        Part II--Other Matters...................................   168
            Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for 
              Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance while in 
              certain overseas areas to cover members in any 
              combat zone or overseas direct support area (sec. 
              641)...............................................   168
            Use of member's current pay grade and years of 
              service, rather than final retirement pay grade and 
              years of service, in a division of property 
              involving disposable retired pay (sec. 642)........   168
            Permanent extension of payment of special survivor 
              indemnity allowances under the survivor benefit 
              plan (sec. 643)....................................   168
            Authority to deduct Survivor Benefit Plan premiums 
              from combat-related special compensation when 
              retired pay not sufficient (sec. 644)..............   168
            Sense of the Congress on options for members of the 
              Armed Forces to designate payment of the death 
              gratuity to a trust for a special needs individual 
              (sec. 645).........................................   169
            Independent assessment of the Survivor Benefit Plan 
              (sec. 646).........................................   169
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits and Operations....................   170
        Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at 
          commissaries and exchanges (sec. 661)..................   170
        Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary 
          System (sec. 662)......................................   170
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   171
        Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear 
          furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon 
          their initial entry into the Armed Forces (sec. 671)...   171
        Authority for payment of pay and allowances and retired 
          and retainer pay pursuant to power of attorney (sec. 
          672)...................................................   171
    Items of Special Interest....................................   171
        Military forty-year pay table revision advisability 
          report.................................................   171
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   173
        Military health system reform overview...................   173
    Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits...........   177
        Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE 
          program (sec. 701).....................................   177
        Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the 
          TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of 
          certain pharmaceutical agents (sec. 702)...............   178
        Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE 
          program for participation in the Federal Employees 
          Dental and Vision Insurance Program (sec. 703).........   179
        Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for 
          digestive and inherited metabolic disorders under the 
          TRICARE program (sec. 704).............................   179
        Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military 
          health system (sec. 705)...............................   179
        Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at 
          military treatment facilities (sec. 706)...............   180
        Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of 
          the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707)..   181
        Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces 
          for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military 
          sexual trauma (sec. 708)...............................   181
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   182
        Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, 
          Navy, and Air Force into the Defense Health Agency 
          (sec. 721).............................................   182
        Accountability for the performance of the military health 
          care system of certain positions in the system (sec. 
          722)...................................................   183
        Selection of commanders and directors of military 
          treatment facilities and tours of duty of commanders of 
          such facilities (sec. 723).............................   184
        Authority to convert military medical and dental 
          positions to civilian medical and dental positions 
          (sec. 724).............................................   184
        Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care 
          services provided by military treatment facilities 
          (sec. 725).............................................   185
        Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE 
          program (sec. 726).....................................   185
        Authority to enter into health care contracts with 
          certain entities to provide care under the TRICARE 
          program (sec. 727).....................................   187
        Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of 
          health care under TRICARE program through programs to 
          involve covered beneficiaries (sec. 728)...............   187
        Establishment of centers of excellence for specialty care 
          in the military health system (sec. 729)...............   188
        Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and 
          improve quality of health care services delivered in 
          military treatment facilities (sec. 730)...............   188
        Establishment of advisory committees for military 
          treatment facilities (sec. 731)........................   189
        Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments 
          at military treatment facilities (sec. 732)............   189
        Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency 
          departments, and pharmacies of military treatment 
          facilities (sec. 733)..................................   190
        Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and 
          trauma care skills of health care providers of 
          Department of Defense (sec. 734).......................   190
        Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized 
          strengths, and infrastructure in military health system 
          to maintain readiness and core competencies of health 
          care providers (sec. 735)..............................   190
        Establishment of high performance military-civilian 
          integrated health delivery systems (sec. 736)..........   191
        Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain 
          health care services at military treatment facilities 
          (sec. 737).............................................   192
        Modification of acquisition strategy for health care 
          professional staffing services (sec. 738)..............   192
        Reduction of administrative requirements relating to 
          automatic renewal of enrollments in TRICARE Prime (sec. 
          739)...................................................   193
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   193
        Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants 
          to provide mental health care to members of the Armed 
          Forces (sec. 751)......................................   193
        Implementation of plan to eliminate certain graduate 
          medical education programs of Department of Defense 
          (sec. 752).............................................   193
        Modification of authority of Uniformed Services 
          University of the Health Sciences to include 
          undergraduate and other medical education and training 
          programs (sec. 753)....................................   194
        Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher 
          education that offer degrees in allopathic or 
          osteopathic medicine (sec. 754)........................   194
        Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-
          Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund (sec. 755)..........................   194
        Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and 
          development projects (sec. 756)........................   194
        Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense 
          to entities carrying out state vaccination programs for 
          costs of vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries 
          (sec. 757).............................................   195
        Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and 
          services to treat autism spectrum disorder under 
          demonstration program (sec. 758).......................   195
        Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of 
          Defense of questions on service women experiences with 
          family planning services and counseling (sec. 759).....   195
        Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families 
          of members of reserve components called to Active Duty 
          and elimination of certain charges for such families 
          (sec. 760).............................................   195
        Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices 
          at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
          agents for treatment of post-traumatic stress (sec. 
          761)...................................................   196
        Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related 
          services for children of members of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 762).............................................   196
        Comptroller General report on health care delivery and 
          waste in military health system (sec. 763).............   197
    Items of Special Interest....................................   197
        Cancer research programs.................................   197
        Capability to transport and treat military personnel 
          exposed to highly infectious emerging diseases.........   197
        Chronic pain.............................................   197
        Collar technology........................................   198
        Comptroller General report on military health 
          professional recruitment...............................   198
        Comptroller General report on TRICARE managed care 
          support contracts acquisition strategy and program 
          administration requirements............................   199
        Dental implants..........................................   199
        Department of Defense tobacco policy.....................   200
        Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial.....   200
        Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies...................   200
        Hearing restoration research.............................   201
        Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE 
          coverage for emerging health care services and supplies   202
        Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes..................   202
        Maternity care...........................................   202
        Medical operations in austere environments...............   202
        Online patient portal....................................   203
        Prescription Drug Abuse..................................   203
        Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing....   203
        Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military 
          hospital and surgical environments.....................   204
        Report on provision of behavioral health and suicide 
          prevention resources to reserve component members......   205
        TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program..   205
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
  RELATED MATTERS................................................   207
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   207
        Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801)........   207
        Authority for temporary service of Principal Military 
          Deputies to the Assistant Secretaries of the military 
          departments for acquisition as acting Assistant 
          Secretaries (sec. 802).................................   207
        Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis 
          (sec. 803).............................................   207
        Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804).........   207
        Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver 
          authority to acquire vital national security 
          capabilities (sec. 805)................................   208
        Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private 
          competitions for conversion of Department of Defense 
          functions to performance by contractors (sec. 806).....   208
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   208
        Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811).............   208
        Increased micro-purchase threshold applicable to 
          Department of Defense procurements (sec. 812)..........   209
        Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813).............   209
        Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses 
          as allowable independent research and development costs 
          on certain contracts (sec. 814)........................   209
        Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the 
          Government as a factor in the evaluation of proposals 
          for certain multiple-award task or delivery order 
          contracts (sec. 815)...................................   209
        Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual 
          actions (sec. 816).....................................   210
        Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817).........   210
        Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818)   210
        Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819)   211
        Modified data collection requirements applicable to 
          procurement of services (sec. 820).....................   211
        Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms 
          (sec. 821).............................................   211
        Report on bid protests (sec. 822)........................   211
        Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, 
          munitions, and technologies manufactured and developed 
          under cooperative research and development agreements 
          as use of competitive procedures (sec. 823)............   212
        Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824).........   212
        Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source 
          selection process (sec. 825)...........................   212
        Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826)..   212
        Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827)..........   213
        Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign 
          military sales (sec. 828)..............................   214
        Preference for performance-based contractual payments 
          (sec. 829).............................................   214
        Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A)...................   214
        Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the 
          defense against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, 
          biological, chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 
          829B)..................................................   214
        Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price 
          technically acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C).   215
        Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or 
          equivalent descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D)...   215
        Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 
          829E)..................................................   215
        Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F).....   215
        Products and services purchased through contracting 
          program for firms that hire the severely disabled (sec. 
          829G)..................................................   216
        Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and 
          Safe Workplaces'' to Department of Defense contractors 
          (sec. 829H)............................................   217
        Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I)..................   217
        Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J)...............   217
    Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   217
        Repeal of major automated information systems provisions 
          (sec. 831).............................................   217
        Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition 
          program (sec. 832).....................................   218
        Acquisition strategy (sec. 833)..........................   218
        Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834)..............   218
        Modification of certain Milestone B certification 
          requirements (sec. 835)................................   219
        Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836)..........   219
        Authority to designate increments or blocks of items 
          delivered under major defense acquisition programs as 
          major subprograms for purposes of acquisition reporting 
          (sec. 837).............................................   219
        Counting of major defense acquisition program 
          subcontracts toward small business goals (sec. 838)....   219
        Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate 
          percentage increase in unit costs (sec. 839)...........   220
        Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles 
          and munitions above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840)...   220
        Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration 
          program (sec. 841).....................................   220
        Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 
          842)...................................................   220
        Mission and system of systems of interoperability (sec. 
          843)...................................................   221
        B-21 bomber development program baseline and cost control 
          (sec. 844).............................................   221
    Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce.....   222
        Improvement of program and project management by the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 851).......................   222
        Authority to waive tenure requirement for program 
          managers for program definition and program execution 
          periods (sec. 852).....................................   222
        Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition 
          program outcomes (sec. 853)............................   222
        Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition 
          Workforce Development Fund may be used (sec. 854)......   222
    Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items...........   223
        Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the 
          acquisition of commercial items and commercially 
          available off-the-shelf items (sec. 861)...............   223
        Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations 
          (sec. 862).............................................   223
        Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu 
          of military specifications and standards (sec. 863)....   224
        Preference for commercial services (sec. 864)............   224
        Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors 
          prior to release of prime contract requests for 
          proposals as commercial items (sec. 865)...............   224
        Treatment of services provided by nontraditional 
          contractors as commercial items (sec. 866).............   225
        Use of non-cost contracts to acquire commercial items 
          (sec. 867).............................................   225
        Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative 
          commercial items, technologies, and services using 
          general solicitation competitive procedures (sec. 868).   226
    Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters..........................   226
        Greater integration of the national technical industrial 
          base (sec. 871)........................................   226
        Integration of civil and military roles in attaining 
          national technology and industrial base objectives 
          (sec. 872).............................................   226
        Distribution support and services for weapon systems 
          contractors (sec. 873).................................   227
        Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR 
          programs (sec. 874)....................................   227
        Modified requirements for distribution of assistance 
          under procurement technical assistance cooperative 
          agreements (sec. 875)..................................   227
        Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation 
          prototyping program (sec. 876).........................   227
    Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters................   227
        International sales process improvements (sec. 881)......   227
        Working capital fund for precision guided munitions 
          exports in support of contingency operations (sec. 882)   228
        Extension of authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in countries along major route of supply to 
          Afghanistan (sec. 883).................................   229
        Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside 
          the United States (sec. 884)...........................   229
        Enhanced authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in Africa in support of covered activities 
          (sec. 885).............................................   229
        Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department 
          of Defense of People's Republic of China-origin items 
          that meet the definition of goods and services 
          controlled as munitions items when moved to the ``600 
          series'' of the Commerce Control List (sec. 886).......   229
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   230
        Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891).......   230
        Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to 
          certain non-defense agencies (sec. 892)................   231
        Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve 
          performance of certain Department Of Defense by Defense 
          organizations (sec. 893)...............................   232
        Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894).   232
        Exemption from requirement for capital planning and 
          investment control for information technology equipment 
          included as integral part of a weapon or weapon system 
          (sec. 895).............................................   232
        Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards 
          for innovative technology projects (sec. 896)..........   232
        Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897)   233
        Improved transparency and oversight over Department of 
          Defense research, development, test, and evaluation 
          efforts and procurement activities related to medical 
          research (sec. 898)....................................   233
        Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology 
          developed at Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 
          899)...................................................   233
        Rapid prototyping funds for the military services (sec. 
          899A)..................................................   233
        Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B)................   233
    Items of Special Interest....................................   234
        Defense industrial supply chain security.................   234
        Expansion of eligible small business concerns............   234
        Modification of commercial items definition..............   234
        Preserving competition in the defense industry...........   235
        Small business contract bundling.........................   235
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   237
    Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 
      Matters....................................................   237
        Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 
          and related acquisition position in the Office of the 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 901)........................   237
        Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the 
          military departments (sec. 902)........................   239
        Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
          Information (Chief Information Officer) in Office of 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 903)........................   239
        Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the 
          Secretary of Defense and other Department of Defense 
          headquarters offices (sec. 904)........................   239
        Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation 
          contracts at management headquarters of the Department 
          of Defense and the military departments (sec. 905).....   240
        Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
          supporting achievement of results in Department of 
          Defense management reform and business transformation 
          efforts (sec. 906).....................................   240
    Subtitle B--Combatant Command Matters........................   241
        Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command 
          matters (sec. 921).....................................   241
        Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of 
          authority to direct transfer of forces (sec. 922)......   242
        Organization of the Department of Defense for management 
          of special operations forces and special operations 
          (sec. 923).............................................   243
        Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of 
          a unified combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 
          924)...................................................   244
        Expansion of eligibility for deputy commander of 
          combatant command having United States among geographic 
          area of responsibility to include officers of the 
          Reserves (sec. 925)....................................   244
    Subtitle C--Organization and Management of Other Department 
      of Defense Offices and Elements............................   245
        Organizational strategy for the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 941).............................................   245
        Department of Defense management overview by the 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 942)........................   253
        Modification of composition and mission of Joint 
          Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 943)..............   255
        Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief 
          of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 944)................   255
        Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence 
          collection (sec. 945)..................................   256
        Repeal of Financial Management Modernization Executive 
          Committee (sec. 946)...................................   256
        Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family 
          Policy and Office of Community Support for Military 
          Families with Special Needs (sec. 947).................   257
        Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and 
          regulations to Department of Defense science and 
          technology reinvention laboratories and DARPA to 
          improve operations and personnel management (sec. 948).   257
    Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections for Members of the 
      Armed Forces...............................................   257
        Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 
          961)...................................................   257
        Modification of whistleblower protection authorities to 
          restrict contrary findings of prohibited personnel 
          action by the Secretary concerned (sec. 962)...........   258
        Improvements to authorities and procedures for the 
          correction of military records (sec. 963)..............   258
        Comptroller General of the United States review of 
          integrity of Department of Defense whistleblower 
          program (sec. 964).....................................   259
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   259
        Modification of requirements for accounting for members 
          of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees listed as missing (sec. 971).................   259
        Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense 
          relating to protection of the Pentagon Reservation and 
          other Department of Defense facilities in the National 
          Capitol Region (sec. 972)..............................   259
        Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense 
          personnel and innovation initiatives (sec. 973)........   260
    Items of Special Interest....................................
        4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry 
          Division...............................................   260
        Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations.......   261
        Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the 
          Warfighter.............................................   261
        Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military 
          Intelligence Readiness Command.........................   261
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   263
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   263
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   263
        Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis 
          products for the purpose of preparing financial 
          statement audits (sec. 1002)...........................   263
        Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003).........   263
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   264
        Codification and modification of authority to provide 
          support for counter-drug activities and activities to 
          counter transnational organized crime of civilian law 
          enforcement agencies (sec. 1006).......................   264
        Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and 
          counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007)......   264
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   264
        Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of 
          cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1011).............   264
        Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy 
          maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012)....   265
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   266
        Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or 
          release of individuals detained at United States Naval 
          Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States 
          (sec. 1021)............................................   266
        Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or 
          modify facilities in the United State to house 
          detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022).......................   266
        Designing and planning related to construction of certain 
          facilities in the United States (sec. 1023)............   266
        Authority to transfer individuals detained at United 
          States Naval station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 
          United States temporarily for emergency or critical 
          medical treatment (sec. 1024)..........................   266
        Authority for article III judges to take certain actions 
          relating to individuals detained at United States Naval 
          Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025)..............   267
        Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or 
          release to certain countries of individuals detained at 
          United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 
          1026)..................................................   267
        Matters on memorandum of understanding between the United 
          States and governments of receiving foreign countries 
          and entities in certifications on transfer of detainees 
          at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
          (sec. 1027)............................................   267
        Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States 
          Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report 
          on their terrorist actions and affiliations (sec. 1028)   267
        Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 
          individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to countries covered by 
          Department of State travel warnings (sec. 1029)........   267
        Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment 
          of forces at or closure of United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1030).......................   268
    Subtitle E--Assured Access to Space Matters..................   268
        Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian 
          Federation for space launch of national security 
          satellites (sec. 1036).................................   268
        Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian 
          Federation to achieve assured access to space (sec. 
          1037)..................................................   268
        Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines 
          from the Russian Federation for the evolved expendable 
          launch vehicle program (sec. 1038).....................   269
    Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   269
        Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041)....   269
        Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military 
          strategy and force posture in the United States Pacific 
          Command area of responsibility (sec. 1042).............   269
        Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic 
          Port (sec. 1043).......................................   270
        Modification of requirements regarding notifications to 
          Congress on sensitive military operations (sec. 1044)..   270
        Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045)..........   270
        Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted 
          aircraft by enlisted personnel (sec. 1046).............   271
        Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and 
          Rescue Units (sec. 1047)...............................   272
        Modification of requirements relating to management of 
          military technicians (sec. 1048).......................   272
        Support for the Associate Director of the Central 
          Intelligence Agency for Military Affairs (sec. 1049)...   273
        Enhancement of interagency support during contingency 
          operations and transition periods (sec. 1050)..........   273
        Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of 
          military training between Department of Homeland 
          Security and Department of Defense (sec. 1051).........   273
        Notification on the provision of defense sensitive 
          support (sec. 1052)....................................   274
        Modification of authority to transfer Department of 
          Defense property for law enforcement activities (sec. 
          1053)..................................................   274
        Exemption of information on military tactics, techniques, 
          and procedures from release under Freedom of 
          Information Act (sec. 1054)............................   274
        Treatment of certain sensitive information by State and 
          local governments (sec. 1055)..........................   275
        Recovery of excess firearms, ammunition, and parts 
          granted to foreign countries and transfer to certain 
          persons (sec. 1056)....................................   275
        Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth 
          generation airborne systems (sec. 1057)................   275
        Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058)..........   275
    Subtitle G--National Commission on Military, National, and 
      Public Service.............................................   275
        Purpose and scope (sec. 1066)............................   275
        National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
          Service (sec. 1067)....................................   276
        Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068).............   276
        Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations 
          (sec. 1069)............................................   276
        Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070).................   277
        Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071)....................   277
        Termination (sec. 1072)..................................   277
        Funding (sec. 1073)......................................   277
    Subtitle H--Studies and Reports..............................   277
        Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces 
          and the combatant commands (sec. 1076).................   277
        Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 1077)............................................   278
        Report on independent assessment of the force structure 
          of the Armed Forces to meet the national defense 
          strategy (sec. 1078)...................................   279
        Annual report on observation flights over the United 
          States under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079).........   279
        Reports on programs managed under alternative 
          compensatory control measures in the Department of 
          Defense (sec. 1080)....................................   279
        Requirement for notice and reporting to Committees on 
          Armed Services of certain expenditures of funds by 
          Defense Intelligence Agency (sec. 1081)................   280
        Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 
          for which statutory requirement is from an amendment 
          made by an annual national defense authorization Act 
          (sec. 1082)............................................   280
        Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 
          for which statutory requirement is specified in an 
          annual national defense authorization Act (sec. 1083)..   280
        Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for 
          the civilian personnel workforce and service contractor 
          workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 1084).....   280
    Subtitle I--Other Matters....................................   280
        Military service management of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
          program (sec. 1086)....................................   280
        Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F-35 joint 
          strike fighter as a major defense acquisition program 
          (sec. 1087)............................................   281
        Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and 
          carrier air wing headquarters required to be maintained 
          (sec. 1088)............................................   282
        Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089)   282
        Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 
          1090)..................................................   283
        Border security metrics (sec. 1091)......................   283
        Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army 
          Marketing Research Group (sec. 1092)...................   283
        Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare 
          Command insignia (sec. 1093)...........................   284
        Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tomb 
          of the Unknown Soldier (sec. 1094).....................   284
        Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC-
          46A aircraft (sec. 1095)...............................   284
        Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national 
          defense strategy (sec. 1096)...........................   284
    Items of Special Interest....................................   285
        Air Force training with partner nations..................   285
        Arctic Search and Rescue.................................   285
        Army Modernization Strategy..............................   286
        Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).......................   287
        Comptroller General assessment of national defense 
          implications of the next generation air traffic 
          management system......................................   287
        Comptroller General assessment of priorities and 
          processes for operational support airlift and executive 
          airlift by Department of Defense aircraft..............   288
        Domain awareness in the Arctic...........................   289
        Night vision technology for the southern border..........   289
        Predictable Funding for the National Guard Counterdrug 
          Program................................................   290
        Study on Article III trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.   290
        Total Army End Strength..................................   290
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   293
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters Generally..........   293
        Civilian personnel management (sec. 1101)................   293
        Repeal of requirement for annual strategic workforce plan 
          for the Department of Defense (sec. 1102)..............   293
        Temporary and term appointments in the competitive 
          service in the Department of Defense (sec. 1103).......   293
        Personnel authorities related to the defense acquisition 
          workforce (sec. 1104)..................................   293
        Direct hire authority for financial management experts 
          into the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1105)...   294
        Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for 
          post-secondary students and recent graduates (sec. 
          1106)..................................................   294
        Public-private talent exchange (sec. 1107)...............   295
        Training for employment personnel of Department of 
          Defense on matters relating to authorities for 
          recruitment and retention at United States Cyber 
          Command (sec. 1108)....................................   295
        Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation 
          incentive pay authorized for civilian employees of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1109)......................   295
        Repeal of certain basis for appointment of a retired 
          member of the Armed Forces to Department of Defense 
          position within 180 days of retirement (sec. 1110).....   296
        Pilot programs on career sabbaticals for Department of 
          Defense civilian employees (sec. 1111).................   297
        Limitation on number of SES employees (sec. 1112)........   297
        No time limitation for appointment of relocating military 
          spouses (sec. 1113)....................................   297
    Subtitle B--Department of Defense Science and Technology 
      Laboratories and Related Matters...........................   297
        Permanent personnel management authority for the 
          Department of Defense for experts in science and 
          engineering (sec. 1121)................................   297
        Permanent extension and modification of temporary 
          authorities for certain positions at Department of 
          Defense research and engineering laboratories (sec. 
          1122)..................................................   298
        Direct hire authority for scientific and engineering 
          positions for test and evaluation facilities of the 
          Major Range and Test Facility Base (sec. 1123).........   299
        Permanent authority for the temporary exchange of 
          information technology personnel (sec. 1124)...........   300
        Pilot program on enhanced pay authority for certain 
          research and technology positions in the science and 
          technology reinvention laboratories of the Department 
          of Defense (sec. 1125).................................   300
        Discharge of certain authorities to conduct personnel 
          demonstration projects (sec. 1126).....................   301
    Subtitle C--Government-Wide Matters..........................   302
        Expansion of personnel flexibilities relating to land 
          management agencies to include all agencies (sec. 1131)   302
        Direct hiring for Federal wage schedule employees (sec. 
          1132)..................................................   302
        Appointment authority for uniquely qualified prevailing 
          rate employees (sec. 1133).............................   302
        Limitation on preference eligible hiring preferences for 
          permanent employees in the competitive service (sec. 
          1134)..................................................   302
        Authority for advancement of pay for certain employees 
          relocating within the United States and its territories 
          (sec. 1135)............................................   302
        Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard 
          to overtime for federal civilian employees temporarily 
          assigned to a foreign area (sec. 1136).................   302
        One-year extension of authority to waive annual 
          limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on 
          pay for federal civilian employees working overseas 
          (sec. 1137)............................................   303
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   303
        Modification of flat rate per diem requirement for 
          personnel on long-term temporary duty assignments (sec. 
          1151)..................................................   303
        One-year extension of temporary authority to grant 
          allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian 
          personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1152)   304
    Items of Special Interest....................................   304
        Furlough of Department of Defense civilian employees.....   304
        Performance metrics relative to procedures for reduction 
          in force of Department of Defense civilian personnel...   305
        Report on automatic step increases for Department of 
          Defense civilians......................................   305
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   307
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   307
        Three-Year Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response 
          Program (sec. 1201)....................................   307
        Increase in size of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund 
          (sec. 1202)............................................   307
        Codification of authority for support of special 
          operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1203).............   307
        Prohibition on use of funds to invite, assist, or 
          otherwise assure the participation of Cuba in certain 
          joint or multilateral exercises (sec. 1204)............   307
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan.....   308
        Extension and modification of authority to transfer 
          defense articles and provide defense services to the 
          military and security forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1211)   308
        Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 
          coalition nations for support (sec. 1212)..............   308
        Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and 
          projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan 
          that cannot be safely accessed by United States 
          Government Personnel (sec. 1213).......................   308
        Reimbursement of Pakistan for security enhancement 
          activities (sec. 1214).................................   308
        Improvement of oversight of United States Government 
          efforts in Afghanistan. (sec. 1215)....................   309
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iraq and Syria...............   310
        Extension and modification of authority to provide 
          assistance to the vetted Syrian Opposition (sec. 1221).   310
        Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter 
          the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (sec. 1222)...   310
        Extension of authority to support operations and 
          activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in 
          Iraq (sec. 1223).......................................   310
    Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran.........................   311
        Additional elements in the annual report on the military 
          power of Iran (sec. 1226)..............................   311
    Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation.......   311
        Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance 
          Initiative (sec. 1231).................................   311
        Extension and modification of authority on training for 
          Eastern European national military forces in the course 
          of multilateral exercises (sec. 1232)..................   312
        Additional matters in annual report on military and 
          security developments involving the Russian Federation 
          (sec. 1233)............................................   312
        European investment in security and stability (sec. 1234)   312
        Sense of Senate on the European Deterrence Initiative 
          (sec. 1235)............................................   313
    Subtitle F--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region......   313
        Annual update on Department of Defense Freedom of 
          Navigation Report (sec. 1241)..........................   313
        Inclusion of the Philippines among allied countries with 
          whom United States may enter into cooperative military 
          airlift agreements (sec. 1242).........................   314
        Military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan 
          (sec. 1243)............................................   314
        Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1244)....................   314
        Sense of Senate on enhancement of the military 
          relationship between the United States and Vietnam 
          (sec. 1245)............................................   315
        Redesignation of South China Sea Initiative (sec. 1246)..   315
    Subtitle G--Reform of Department of Defense Security 
      Cooperation................................................   315
        Sense of Congress on security sector assistance (sec. 
          1251)..................................................   315
        Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation 
          (sec. 1252)............................................   316
        Military-to-military exchanges (sec. 1253)...............   317
        Consolidation and revision of authorities for payment of 
          personnel expenses necessary for theater security 
          cooperation (sec. 1254)................................   317
        Transfer and revision of authority on payment of expenses 
          in connection with training and exercises with friendly 
          foreign forces (sec. 1255).............................   317
        Transfer and revision of authority to provide operational 
          support to forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 
          1256)..................................................   317
        Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec. 
          1257)..................................................   318
        Modification of regional defense combating terrorism 
          fellowship program (sec. 1258).........................   318
        Consolidation of authorities for service academy 
          international engagement (sec. 1259)...................   318
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1260)........   318
        Consolidation and standardization of reporting 
          requirements relating to security cooperation 
          authorities (sec. 1261)................................   319
        Requirement for submittal of consolidated annual budget 
          for security cooperation programs and activities of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1262)......................   319
        Department of Defense security cooperation workforce 
          development (sec. 1263)................................   320
        Coordination between the Department of Defense and 
          Department of State on certain security cooperation and 
          security assistance programs and activities (sec. 1264)   320
        Repeal of superseded, obsolete, or duplicative statutes 
          relating to security cooperation authorities (sec. 
          1265)..................................................   321
    Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters..........   321
        Free trade agreements with Sub-Saharan African countries 
          (sec. 1271)............................................   321
        Extension and expansion of authority to support border 
          security operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 
          1272)..................................................   321
        Modification and clarification of United States-Israel 
          anti-tunnel cooperation authority (sec. 1273)..........   321
        Modification and extension of authorization for non-
          conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1274)   322
        Assessment of proliferation of certain remotely piloted 
          aircraft systems (sec. 1275)...........................   322
        Efforts to end modern slavery (sec. 1276)................   322
    Items of Special Interest....................................   322
        Asia-Pacific force posture resiliency....................   322
        People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) participation in Rim 
          of the Pacific exercise................................   324
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   325
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 
          1301)..................................................   325
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   325
    Items of Special Interest....................................   325
        Long term threat outlook for the Cooperative Threat 
          Reduction program......................................   325
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   327
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   327
        Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................   327
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 
          1402)..................................................   327
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          Wide (sec. 1403).......................................   327
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)....................   327
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1405).......................   327
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1406)........   327
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   327
        National Defense Stockpile matters (sec. 1411)...........   327
        Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to 
          acquire additional materials for the National Defense 
          Stockpile (sec. 1412)..................................   328
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................   329
        Authority to destroy certain specified World War II-era 
          United States-origin chemical munitions located on San 
          Jose Island, Republic of Panama (sec. 1421)............   329
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   329
        Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of 
          Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 
          Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1431)......................   329
        Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 
          Retirement Home (sec. 1432)............................   329
    Budget Items.................................................   330
        Defense Health Program...................................   330
        Foreign currency fluctuation.............................   330
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................   330
        Department of Defense Inspector General Financial 
          Statement Audit Support................................   331
    Items of Special Interest....................................   331
        Rare earth elements critical to national security........   331
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
  CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.........................................   333
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   333
        Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   333
        Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)..............   333
        Procurement (sec. 1503)..................................   333
        Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (sec. 1504)..   333
        Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505)....................   333
        Military Personnel (sec. 1506)...........................   333
        Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................   333
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          Wide (sec. 1508).......................................   333
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)....................   334
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1510).......................   334
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1511)........   334
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   334
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521).......   334
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)...................   334
    Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters..........   334
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)   334
        Extension and modification of authorities on 
          Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1532).........   334
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533).............   335
    Budget Items.................................................   335
        Spider network munitions reduction.......................   335
        Coalition Support Funds..................................   335
        Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund.......................   335
        Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund........   336
        Office of Security Cooperation--Iraq.....................   336
        Syria Train and Equip Fund...............................   336
        Nuclear force readiness in Europe........................   336
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................   337
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities............   338
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS...   339
    Subtitle A--Space Activities.................................   339
        Requirement that pilot program for acquisition of 
          commercial satellite communications services 
          demonstrate order-of-magnitude improvements in 
          satellite communication capabilities (sec. 1601).......   339
        Plan for use of allied launch vehicles (sec. 1602).......   339
        Long-term strategy on electromagnetic spectrum for 
          warfare (sec. 1603)....................................   340
        Five-year plan for Joint Interagency Combined Space 
          Operations Center (sec. 1604)..........................   340
        Independent assessment of global positioning system next 
          generation operational control system (sec. 1605)......   340
        Government Accountability Office assessment of satellite 
          acquisition by National Reconnaissance Office (sec. 
          1606)..................................................   340
        Cost-benefit analysis of commercial use of excess 
          ballistic missile solid rocket motors (sec. 1607)......   340
        Assessment of cost-benefit analysis by Department of 
          Defense of use of KA-band commercial satellite 
          communications (sec. 1608).............................   341
        Limitation on use of funds for Joint Space Operations 
          Center Mission System (sec. 1609)......................   341
        Limitation on availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for 
          the global positioning system next generation 
          operational control system (sec. 1610).................   341
        Availability of certain amounts to meet requirements in 
          connection with United States policy on assured access 
          to space (sec. 1611)...................................   343
        Availability of funds for certain secure voice 
          conferencing capabilities (sec. 1612)..................   343
    Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 
      Activities.................................................   344
        Department of Defense-wide requirements for security 
          clearances for military intelligence officers (sec. 
          1621)..................................................   344
    Subtitle C--Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters   344
        Cyber Protection Support for Department of Defense 
          Personnel in Positions Highly Vulnerable to Cyber 
          Attack (sec. 1631).....................................   344
        Cyber mission forces matters (sec. 1632 )................   344
        Limitation on ending of arrangement in which the 
          commander of the United States Cyber Command is also 
          Director of the National Security Agency (sec. 1633)...   345
        Pilot program on application of consequence-driven, 
          cyber-informed engineering to mitigate against cyber-
          security threats (sec. 1634)...........................   345
        Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of F-35 Aircraft and 
          Support Systems (sec. 1635)............................   346
        Review and assessment of technology strategy and 
          development at Defense Information Systems Agency (sec. 
          1636)..................................................   346
        Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of Department of 
          Defense Critical Infrastructure (sec. 1637)............   347
        Plan for information security continuous monitoring 
          capability and comply-to-connect policy (sec. 1638)....   347
        Report on Authority Delegated to Secretary of Defense to 
          Conduct Cyber Operations (sec. 1639)...................   348
        Deterrence of Adversaries in Cyberspace (sec. 1640)......   348
    Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces...................................   349
        Procurement authority for certain parts of 
          intercontinental ballistic missile fuzes (sec. 1651)...   349
        Modification of report on activities of the council on 
          oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control 
          and Communications System (sec. 1652)..................   350
        Review by the Comptroller General of the United States of 
          recommendations relating to nuclear enterprise of 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1653)......................   350
        Sense of Congress on nuclear deterrence (sec. 1654)......   350
    Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs.........................   350
        Required testing by Missile Defense Agency of ground-
          based mid-course defense element of ballistic missile 
          defense system (sec. 1661).............................   350
        Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system codevelopment 
          and coproduction (sec. 1662)...........................   351
        Non-terrestrial missile defense intercept and defeat 
          capability for the ballistic missile defense system 
          (sec. 1663)............................................   351
        Review of pre-launch missile defense strategy (sec. 1664)   351
        Modification of National Missile Defense policy (sec. 
          1665)..................................................   351
        Extension of prohibitions on providing certain missile 
          defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 
          1666)..................................................   352
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   352
        Survey and review of Defense Intelligence Enterprise 
          (sec. 1671)............................................   352
        Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global 
          Strike (sec. 1672).....................................   352
        Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and National 
          Cryptologic Museum (sec. 1673).........................   352
    Items of Special Interest....................................   352
        Additional Atlantic radar capability.....................   352
        Air Force Global Strike Command's management of the 
          National Airborne Operations Center....................   353
         Air Force Seismic Technologies Program..................   354
        Ballistic Missile Defense System.........................   354
        Commercial cloud implementation in the Department of 
          Defense................................................   354
        Commercial off the shelf procurement for ICBM launch 
          control centers........................................   355
        Comptroller General Review of the ground based strategic 
          deterrent system.......................................   355
        Conventional prompt global strike........................   356
        Cyber protection for the ballistic missile defense system   356
        Cyber security on military installations.................   357
        Department of Defense report on nuclear enterprise 
          funding and management.................................   357
        E-4B Recapitalization Plan...............................   358
        Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.........................   358
        Inclusion of the Army National Guard Cyber Protection 
          Teams in the Department of Defense Cyber Mission Force.   359
        Space situational awareness technologies.................   359
        Space system software review.............................   360
        Strategic missile commonality............................   360
        The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports...   361
        Training for cyber mission forces........................   361
        Weather imagery for U.S. Central Command.................   362
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   363
        Summary and explanation of funding tables................   363
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   363
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   363
        Effective date (sec. 2003)...............................   363
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   365
        Summary..................................................   365
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   365
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   365
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........   365
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2104)..........................   366
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2105)...................................   366
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2106)...................................   366
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   367
        Summary..................................................   367
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   367
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   367
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   367
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   367
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2205)..........................   368
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2206)...................................   368
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2207)...................................   368
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   369
        Summary..................................................   369
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   369
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   369
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   369
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   370
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2016 project (sec. 2305)..........................   370
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2306)...................................   370
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   371
        Summary..................................................   371
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   371
        Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)......   371
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   371
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2404)..........................   372
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2405)...................................   372
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2406)...................................   372
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................   373
        Summary..................................................   373
    Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
      Investment Program.........................................   373
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   373
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   373
    Subtitle B--Host Country In-kind Contributions...............   373
        Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 
          2511)..................................................   373
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   375
        Summary..................................................   375
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of 
      Appropriations.............................................   375
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   375
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   375
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   375
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   376
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   376
        Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and 
          Reserve (sec. 2606)....................................   376
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   376
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2611)..........................   376
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2015 project (sec. 2612)..........................   376
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 
          project (sec. 2613)....................................   376
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2614)...................................   377
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   379
        Summary and explanation of tables........................   379
        Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 
          closure activities funded through Department of Defense 
          Base Closure Account (sec. 2701).......................   379
        Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 
          closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702).......................   379
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   381
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   381
        Extension of temporary, limited authority to use 
          operation and maintenance funds for construction 
          projects in certain areas outside the United States 
          (sec. 2801)............................................   381
        Limited authority for scope of work increase (sec. 2802).   381
        Permanent authority for acceptance and use of 
          contributions for certain construction, maintenance, 
          and repair projects mutually beneficial to the 
          Department of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces (sec. 
          2803)..................................................   381
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   381
        Authority to carry out military construction projects for 
          energy resiliency and security projects not previously 
          authorized (sec. 2811).................................   381
        Authority of the Secretary concerned to accept lessee 
          improvements at government-owned/contractor-operated 
          industrial plants or facilities (sec. 2812)............   382
        Treatment of insured depository institutions operating on 
          land leased from military installations (sec. 2813)....   382
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   383
        Land acquisitions, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2821)   383
        Land conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena, 
          Alaska (sec. 2822).....................................   383
        Land conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research 
          Program facility and adjacent property, Gakona, Alaska 
          (sec. 2823)............................................   383
        Transfer of Fort Belvoir Mark Center Campus from the 
          Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and 
          applicability of certain provisions of law relating to 
          the Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2824)...................   383
        Transfer of Administrative Jurisdictions, Navajo Army 
          Depot, Arizona (sec. 2825).............................   383
    Subtitle D--Utah Land Withdrawals and Exchanges..............   383
        PART I--Authorization for Temporary Closure of Certain 
          Public Land Adjacent to the Utah Test and Training 
          Range..................................................   383
            Short Title (sec. 2831)..............................   383
            Definitions (sec. 2832)..............................   384
            Memorandum of agreement (sec. 2833)..................   384
            Temporary closures (sec. 2834).......................   384
            Liability (sec. 2835)................................   384
            Community resource advisory group (sec. 2836)........   384
            Savings clauses (sec. 2837)..........................   384
        PART II--Bureau of Land Management Land Exchange with 
          State of Utah..........................................   384
            Definitions (sec. 2841)..............................   384
            Exchange of federal land and non-federal land (sec. 
              2842)..............................................   384
            Status and management of non-federal land acquired by 
              the United States (sec. 2843)......................   385
            Hazardous materials (sec. 2844)......................   385
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   385
        Certification of optimal location for 4th and 5th 
          generation combat aircraft basing and for rotation of 
          forces at Naval Air Station El Centro or Marine Corps 
          Air Station Kaneohe Bay (sec. 2851)....................   385
        Replenishment of Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional 
          aquifer, Arizona (sec. 2852)...........................   385
    Items of Special Interest....................................   385
        Concurrent use of repair and new construction............   385
        Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities...   386
        Extension of the runway at Pope Army Airfield............   387
        Military Ocean Terminal, Concord infrastructure impacts 
          on readiness...........................................   387
        Ordnance Plant Recapitalization..........................   388
        Treatment of stormwater as wastewater....................   388
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION   389
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2901)...................................   389
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2902)...................................   389
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903)..............   389
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   391
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   391
    Overview.....................................................   391
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   391
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   391
        Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)...............   392
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   392
        Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)...............................   392
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   392
        Common financial systems for the nuclear security 
          enterprise (sec. 3111).................................   392
        Industry best practices in operations at National Nuclear 
          Security Administration facilities and sites (sec. 
          3112)..................................................   393
        Limitation on acceleration of dismantlement of retired 
          nuclear weapons (sec. 3113)............................   393
        Contract for Mixed-Oxide fuel fabrication facility 
          construction project (sec. 3114).......................   393
        Unavailability for general and administrative overhead 
          costs of amounts specified for certain laboratories for 
          laboratory-directed research and development (sec. 
          3115)..................................................   395
        Increase in certain limitations applicable to funds for 
          conceptual and construction design of the Department of 
          Energy (sec. 3116).....................................   395
    Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................   395
        Estimate of total life cycle cost of tank waste cleanup 
          at Hanford Reservation (sec. 3121).....................   395
        Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of low-
          activity waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 
          3122)..................................................   396
        Analyses of options for disposal of high-level 
          radioactive waste (sec. 3123)..........................   398
        Elimination of duplication in reviews by the Comptroller 
          General of the United States (sec. 3124)...............   399
        Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the 
          United States report on the program on scientific 
          engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3125)............   400
    Budget Items.................................................   400
        Environmental management at Los Alamos National 
          Laboratory.............................................   400
        Stockpile Responsiveness Program.........................   400
        Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and 
          decommissioning........................................   400
        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..............................   400
        Weapons dismantlement and disposition....................   400
        MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility............................   401
    Items of Special Interest....................................   401
        Comptroller General review of the National Nuclear 
          Security Administration's depleted uranium management 
          program................................................   401
        Long term planning for H-Canyon..........................   402
        Management of the project design phase at the National 
          Nuclear Security Administration........................   402
        Microlab implementation..................................   403
        Plutonium strategy.......................................   404
        Report on future-year funding needs......................   405
        Report on high-level risks to the B61-12 Life extension 
          program................................................   406
        Report on interoperable warhead-1........................   406
        Responsive capabilities program..........................   407
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   409
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   409
TITLE XXXIII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THIRD CLASS MEDICAL 
  REFORM AND GENERAL AVIATION PILOT PROTECTIONS..................   411
        Short title (sec. 3301)..................................   411
        Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots 
          (sec. 3302)............................................   411
        Expansion of Pilot's Bill of Rights (sec. 3303)..........   411
        Limitations on reexamination of certificate holders (sec. 
          3304)..................................................   411
        Expediting updates to NOTAM program (sec. 3305)..........   412
        Accessibility of certain flight data (sec. 3306).........   412
        Authority for legal counsel to issue certain notices 
          (sec. 3307)............................................   412
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   413
        Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)......................   413
        National security floating dry docks (sec. 3502).........   413
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   415
        Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)...   415
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   423
        Procurement (sec. 4101)..................................   424
        Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 
          4102)..................................................   459
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   471
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)..   472
        Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 
          contingency operations (sec. 4202).....................   506
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   509
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)....................   510
        Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency 
          operations (sec. 4302).................................   531
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   543
        Military personnel (sec. 4401)...........................   544
        Military personnel for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4402)............................................   545
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   547
        Other authorizations (sec. 4501).........................   548
        Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4502)............................................   553
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   557
        Military construction (sec. 4601)........................   558
        Military construction for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4602)............................................   574
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   577
        Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 
          4701)..................................................   578
DIVISION E--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REFORM..............   589
        Short title (Sec. 5001)..................................   589
TITLE LI--GENERAL PROVISIONS.....................................   589
        Definitions (sec. 5101)..................................   589
        Clarification of persons subject to UCMJ while on 
          inactive-duty training (sec. 5102).....................   589
        Staff judge advocate disqualification due to prior 
          involvement in case (sec. 5103)........................   589
        Conforming amendment relating to military magistrates 
          (sec. 5104)............................................   589
        Rights of victim (sec. 5105).............................   590
TITLE LII--APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT............................   591
        Restraint of persons charged (sec. 5121).................   591
        Modification of prohibition of confinement of members of 
          the Armed Forces with enemy prisoners and certain 
          others (sec. 5122).....................................   591
TITLE LIII--NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT..............................   593
        Modification of confinement as non-judicial punishment 
          (sec. 5141)............................................   593
TITLE LIV--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION............................   595
        Courts-martial classified (sec. 5161)....................   595
        Jurisdiction of general courts-martial (sec. 5162).......   595
        Jurisdiction of special courts-martial (sec. 5163).......   595
        Summary courts-martial as non-criminal forum (sec. 5164).   595
TITLE LV--COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL..........................   597
        Technical amendment relating to persons authorized to 
          convene general courts-martial (sec. 5181).............   597
        Who may serve on courts-martial and related matters (sec. 
          5182)..................................................   597
        Number of court-martial members in capital cases (sec. 
          5183)..................................................   597
        Detailing, qualifications, and other matters relating to 
          military judges (sec. 5184)............................   597
        Qualifications of trial counsel and defense counsel (sec. 
          5185)..................................................   598
        Assembly and impaneling of members and related matters 
          (sec. 5186)............................................   598
        Military magistrates (sec. 5187).........................   598
TITLE LVI--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE...................................   599
        Charges and specifications (sec. 5201)...................   599
        Proceedings conducted before referral (sec. 5202)........   599
        Preliminary hearing required before referral to general 
          court-martial (sec. 5203)..............................   599
        Disposition guidance (sec. 5204).........................   599
        Advice to convening authority before referral for trial 
          (sec. 5205)............................................   600
        Service of charges and commencement of trial (sec. 5206).   600
TITLE LVII--TRIAL PROCEDURE......................................   601
        Duties of assistant defense counsel (sec. 5221)..........   601
        Sessions (sec. 5222).....................................   601
        Technical amendment relating to continuances (sec. 5223).   601
        Conforming amendments relating to challenges (sec. 5224).   601
        Statute of limitations (sec. 5225).......................   601
        Former jeopardy (sec. 5226)..............................   602
        Pleas of the accused (sec. 5227).........................   602
        Subpoena and other process (sec. 5228)...................   602
        Refusal of person not subject to UCMJ to appear, testify, 
          or produce evidence (sec. 5229)........................   602
        Contempt (sec. 5230).....................................   602
        Depositions (sec. 5231)..................................   603
        Admissibility of sworn testimony by audiotape or 
          videotape from records of courts of inquiry (sec. 5232)   603
        Conforming amendment relating to defense of lack of 
          mental responsibility (sec. 5233)......................   603
        Voting and rulings (sec. 5234)...........................   603
        Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other 
          matters (sec. 5235)....................................   604
        Findings and sentencing (sec. 5236)......................   604
        Plea agreements (sec. 5237)..............................   604
        Record of trial (sec. 5238)..............................   604
TITLE LVIII--SENTENCES...........................................   605
        Sentencing (sec. 5261)...................................   605
        Effective date of sentences (sec. 5262)..................   605
        Sentence of reduction in enlisted grade (sec. 5263)......   605
        Repeal of sentence reduction provision when interim 
          guidance takes effect (sec. 5264)......................   605
TITLE LIX--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL.....   607
        Post-trial processing in general and special courts-
          martial (sec. 5281)....................................   607
        Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-
          trial circumstances (sec. 5282)........................   607
        Post-trial actions in summary courts-martial and certain 
          general and special courts-martial (sec. 5283).........   608
        Entry of judgment (sec. 5284)............................   608
        Waiver of right to appeal and withdrawal of appeal (sec. 
          5285)..................................................   609
        Appeal by the United States (sec. 5286)..................   609
        Rehearings (sec. 5287)...................................   609
        Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary 
          court-martial (sec. 5288)..............................   609
        Transmittal and review of records (sec. 5289)............   609
        Courts of Criminal Appeals (sec. 5290)...................   610
        Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 
          5291)..................................................   610
        Supreme Court review (sec. 5292).........................   610
        Review by Judge Advocate General (sec. 5293).............   610
        Appellate defense counsel in death penalty cases (sec. 
          5294)..................................................   610
        Authority for hearing on vacation of suspension of 
          sentence to be conducted by qualified judge advocate 
          (sec. 5295)............................................   611
        Extension of time for petition for new trial (sec. 5296).   611
        Restoration (sec. 5297)..................................   611
        Leave requirements pending review of certain court-
          martial convictions (sec. 5298)........................   611
TITLE LX--PUNITIVE ARTICLES......................................   613
        Reorganization of punitive articles (sec. 5301)..........   613
        Conviction of offense charged, lesser included offenses, 
          and attempts (sec. 5302)...............................   613
        Soliciting commission of offenses (sec. 5303)............   613
        Malingering (sec. 5304)..................................   613
        Breach of medical quarantine (sec. 5305).................   613
        Missing movement; jumping from vessel (sec. 5306)........   613
        Offenses against correctional custody and restriction 
          (sec. 5307)............................................   613
        Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault 
          of superior commissioned officer (sec. 5308)...........   614
        Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (sec. 
          5309)..................................................   614
        Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by 
          person in position of special trust (sec. 5310)........   614
        Offenses by sentinel or lookout (sec. 5311)..............   614
        Disrespect toward sentinel or lookout (sec. 5312)........   614
        Release of prisoner without authority; drinking with 
          prisoner (sec. 5313)...................................   614
        Penalty for acting as a spy (sec. 5314)..................   615
        Public records offenses (sec. 5315)......................   615
        False or unauthorized pass offenses (sec. 5316)..........   615
        Impersonation offenses (sec. 5317).......................   615
        Insignia offenses (sec. 5318)............................   615
        False official statements; false swearing (sec. 5319)....   615
        Parole violation (sec. 5320).............................   615
        Wrongful taking, opening, etc. of mail matter (sec. 5321)   616
        Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft (sec. 5322).....   616
        Leaving scene of vehicle accident (sec. 5323)............   616
        Drunkenness and other incapacitation offenses (sec. 5324)   616
        Lower blood alcohol content limits for conviction of 
          drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, 
          or vessel (sec. 5325)..................................   616
        Endangerment offenses (sec. 5326)........................   616
        Communicating threats (sec. 5327)........................   616
        Technical amendment relating to murder (sec. 5328).......   616
        Child endangerment (sec. 5329)...........................   617
        Rape and sexual assault offenses (sec. 5330).............   617
        Deposit of obscene matter in the mail (sec. 5331)........   617
        Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other 
          access devices (sec. 5332).............................   617
        False pretenses to obtain services (sec. 5333)...........   617
        Robbery (sec. 5334)......................................   617
        Receiving stolen property (sec. 5335)....................   618
        Offenses concerning Government computers (sec. 5336).....   618
        Bribery (sec. 5337)......................................   618
        Graft (sec. 5338)........................................   618
        Kidnapping (sec. 5339)...................................   618
        Arson; burning property with intent to defraud (sec. 
          5340)..................................................   618
        Assault (sec. 5341)......................................   618
        Burglary and unlawful entry (sec. 5342)..................   618
        Stalking (sec. 5343).....................................   619
        Subornation of perjury (sec. 5344).......................   619
        Obstructing justice (sec. 5345)..........................   619
        Misprision of serious offense (sec. 5346)................   619
        Wrongful refusal to testify (sec. 5347)..................   619
        Prevention of authorized seizure of property (sec. 5348).   619
        Wrongful interference with adverse administrative 
          proceeding (sec. 5349).................................   620
        Retaliation (sec. 5350)..................................   620
        Extraterritorial application of certain offenses (sec. 
          5351)..................................................   620
    Subtitle LXI--Miscellaneous Provisions.......................   620
        Technical amendments relating to courts of inquiry (sec. 
          5401)..................................................   620
        Technical amendment to Article 136 (sec. 5402)...........   621
        Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to be 
          explained to officers upon commissioning (sec. 5403)...   621
        Military justice case management; data collection and 
          accessibility (sec. 5404)..............................   621
    Subtitle LXII--Military Justice Review Panel and Annual 
      Reports....................................................   622
        Military Justice Review Panel (sec. 5421)................   622
        Annual reports (sec. 5422)...............................   623
    Subtitle LXIII--Conforming Amendments and Effective Dates....   623
        Amendments to UCMJ subchapter tables of sections (sec. 
          5441)..................................................   623
        Effective dates (sec. 5442)..............................   623
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS.........................................   623
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   623
        Committee Action.........................................   623
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   628
        Regulatory Impact........................................   628
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   628
ADDITIONAL VIEWS.................................................   629
        Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe...........................   629
        Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte...........................   631
        Additional Views of Mr. Kaine............................   637
        Additional Views of Mr. Heinrich.........................   640
MINORITY VIEWS...................................................   641
        Minority Views of Mr. Lee and Mr. Cruz...................   641
        
        
        
        
        
                                                       Calendar No. 469
                                                       
114th Congress   }                                            {   Report
                                  SENATE
 2d Session      }                                            {  114-255

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

 
     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
   MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2943]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2017;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2017;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2017;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2017; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2017.

                           COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

    For 54 consecutive years, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee has fulfilled its duty of producing the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This vital piece of 
legislation authorizes the necessary funding and provides 
authorities for our military to defend the nation. And it is a 
reflection of its critical importance to our national security 
that the NDAA is one of few bills in Congress that continues to 
enjoy bipartisan support year after year.
    The men and women of our Armed Forces--as well as the 
civilians and contractors who support them--have worked 
honorably and courageously to address the diverse and complex 
array of challenges to our national security, often at great 
personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their 
families. The committee, Congress, and the American people owe 
them a debt of gratitude for this service.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 
continues the committee's commitment to defense reforms that 
enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more 
dangerous world both today and in the future. The NDAA:
           Ensures the long-term viability of the All-
        Volunteer force by sustaining the quality of life of 
        the men and women of the total force (Active Duty, 
        National Guard, and Reserves) and their families, as 
        well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, 
        through fair pay, policies, and comprehensive reform of 
        the military health system.
           Ensures that our men and women in uniform 
        have the advanced equipment they need to succeed in 
        future combat against technologically sophisticated 
        adversaries, in the most efficient and effective manner 
        that provides best value to the taxpayers.
           Reduces strategic risk to the nation and our 
        military servicemembers by prioritizing the restoration 
        the military's readiness to conduct the full range of 
        its assigned missions as soon as possible.
           Addresses shortfalls in strategic 
        integration at the Department of Defense identified by 
        the committee's review of the Goldwater-Nichols Act by 
        improving and sustaining the alignment of effort and 
        resources across different regions, functions, and 
        domains.
           Continues a comprehensive reform of the 
        defense acquisition system designed to drive innovation 
        and ensure accountability for delivering military 
        capabilities to our warfighters on time, on budget, and 
        as promised.
           Reduces excessive and wasteful spending to 
        ensure every defense dollar is spent wisely.
           Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed 
        Forces and the security forces of allied and friendly 
        nations to defeat ISIL, al Qaeda, and other violent 
        extremist organizations.
           Advances our ability to establish deterrence 
        and defend our allies and partners in Eastern Europe 
        and the Asia-Pacific.
           Improves the ability of the Armed Forces to 
        counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing 
        on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of 
        weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
        delivery.

     SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY 
                              IMPLICATION

    The administration's budget request for national defense 
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2017 was $602.0 
billion. Of this amount, $524.0 billion was requested for base 
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.2 billion was 
requested for national security programs in the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB), and $58.8 billion was requested for Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO).
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $602.0 billion in fiscal year 2017, including 
$523.9 billion for base DOD programs, $19.2 billion for 
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $58.9 
billion for OCO.
    The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments 
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary 
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the 
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2017 defense 
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's 
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation 
account for fiscal year 2017 and compares these amounts to the 
request.
    The second table summarizes the total budget authority 
implication for national defense by including national defense 
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the 
defense committees or are already authorized.

                 BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)

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

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (sec. 111)
    The committee is aware that the Distributed Common Ground 
System (DCGS) is a multi-service program that is intended to 
provide a family of fixed and deployable multi-source ground 
processing systems that support a range of United States Air 
Force, United States Navy and United States Army intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. The United States 
Army system, DCGS-A, is the primary system for posting of data, 
processing of information, and disseminating intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance information about the threat, 
weather, and terrain. The system contributes to visualization 
and situational awareness, thereby enhancing tactical maneuver, 
maximizing combat power and enhancing soldiers' ability to 
operate in an unpredictable and changing environment. DCGS-A is 
fielded at echelons that range from fixed sites, corps, 
division, brigade combat team (BCT), and battalion levels. 
Since 2007 the total program cost is in excess of $3.0 billion 
dollars. Costs to complete the program are estimated to be in 
excess of an additional $7.0 billion dollars. DCGS-A, Increment 
2, intended to correct many identified problems, is in source 
selection.
    The committee notes that DCGS-A is operationally suitable 
and effective when operating from fixed sites and providing 
direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, 
the committee also notes that DCGS-A is not suitable or 
effective in providing a reliable capability to tactical forces 
operating in the field. Army BCTs and battalions are required 
to improvise to overcome unreliable hardware and complex 
software. Operator knowledge and proficiency is low because of 
this complexity. Unit readiness is adversely impacted.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to take action to improve training of 
DCGS-A operators and their leaders at division and below 
echelons. Secondly, the Secretary of the Army should rapidly 
identify and field an effective, suitable and survivable 
solution for division and below tactical units. The Secretary 
of the Army shall acquire a commercially available off the 
shelf, non-developmental capability that: meets essential 
tactical operational requirements for processing, analyzing and 
displaying intelligence information; is substantially easier 
for personnel in tactical units to use; and requires less 
training. The Secretary of the Army may not award any contract 
or expend any funds for the design, development, procurement, 
or operation and maintenance of any data architecture, data 
integration, ``cloud'' capability, data analysis, or data 
visualization and workflow capabilities, including various 
warfighting function-related tools under or contributing to any 
increment of the distributed common ground system of the Army 
for tactical units at division or below unless the contract is 
awarded not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act and uses procedures relating to the acquisition of 
commercial items pursuant to part 12 of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations (48 CFR 12.000 et seq.), and the contract uses firm 
fixed-price procedures. In addition, the technology to be 
acquired will begin initial fielding rapidly after the contract 
award; achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) within 9 
months of the contract award; and achieve Full Operating 
Capability (FOC) within 18 months of the contract award.
Multiyear procurement authority for UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk 
        helicopters (sec. 112)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for 
UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk helicopters for fiscal years 2017 
through 2021. The proposed multiyear procurement will produce 
significant savings and facilitate industrial base stability.
    The UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk is a core aviation program and 
is approved for full-rate production through the future years 
defense program. If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will 
consist of 193 UH-60M aircraft and 75 HH-60M aircraft between 
fiscal years 2017 and 2021. The Navy is not expected to 
participate in this multiyear procurement. The request for 
proposal solicitation was released with a minimum quantity of 
36 helicopters per year and a base quantity of 50 helicopters 
per year with options to increase the maximum quantity to 72 
helicopters per year.
Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64E Apache helicopters (sec. 
        113)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for 
AH-64E Apache helicopters for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. 
The proposed multiyear procurement will produce significant 
savings and facilitate industrial stability.
    The AH-64E is a core aviation program and is approved for 
full-rate production through the current future years defense 
program. The minimum need for the AH-64E is not expected to 
decrease during the contemplated multiyear procurement period.
    If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will consist of 
275 AH-64E Apache helicopters between fiscal years 2017 and 
2021. The request for proposal (RFP) was released with a 
minimum quantity of 46 per year, with options for 
remanufactured quantities up to 75 per year. The RFP included 
new build quantities, as a contract option, of up to 30 per 
year. In no year would total quantities of remanufactured and 
new build aircraft exceed 90 per year.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Incremental funding for detail design and construction of LHA 
        replacement ship designated LHA-8 (sec. 121)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a 
contract for detail design and construction of the LHA 
Replacement ship, designated LHA-8. Subject to the availability 
of appropriations, funds for payments under the contract may be 
provided from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
Department of Defense for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require an 
annual report on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages, a 
certification on the acquisition inventory objective of LCS 
mission packages, a limitation on the use of funds to revise or 
deviate from revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy, 
and a repeal of a reporting requirement related to LCS mission 
modules.
    The committee is concerned with the volume and complexity 
of LCS mission package testing that remains to be completed. 
Since 2009, the surface package has been delayed by 2 years, 
the anti-submarine package by 3 years, and the mine 
countermeasures package by at least 8 years. Significant 
design, testing, integration, and deployment challenges must be 
overcome before the promised LCS warfighting capability is 
realized.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report on LCS mission packages, annually, with the 
President's budget request. For each mission package and 
increment therein, the report would include: (1) a description 
of the current status of and plans for development, production, 
and sustainment; (2) a description, including dates, for each 
developmental test, operational test, integrated test, and 
follow-on test event completed in the preceding fiscal year, 
forecast to be conducted in the current fiscal year, and in 
each of the next 5 fiscal years; (3) the planned initial 
operational capability (IOC) date and a description of the 
performance level criteria that must be demonstrated to declare 
IOC; (4) a description of systems that reached IOC in the 
preceding fiscal year and the performance level demonstrated 
versus the performance level required; (5) the acquisition 
inventory objective listed by system; (6) the current locations 
and quantities of the individual systems listed by city, state, 
and country; and (7) the planned locations and quantities of 
systems listed by city, state, and country in each of the next 
5 fiscal years.
    Since 2007, the committee notes the program of record has 
required 64 LCS mission packages, including 16 for anti-
submarine warfare (ASW), 24 for mine countermeasures (MCM), and 
24 for surface warfare (SUW). Several major program changes 
have occurred since this program of record quantity was 
established to support 52 LCS, including: a revised acquisition 
strategy that reduces procurement to 40 ships, the decision to 
modify at least 12 LCS to a frigate design that includes LCS 
ASW and SUW mission package systems permanently installed, and 
a Remote Minehunting System Independent Review Team 
recommendation to exercise MCM capability from platforms other 
than LCS. Therefore, the committee recommends the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics recertify the LCS mission package program of record 
and submit this certification with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018.
    The committee also notes that on March 29, 2016 revision 
three of the LCS acquisition strategy was approved by Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
Frank Kendall. This revision was approved on February 19, 2016 
by Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development & 
Acquisition) Sean Stackley and supports the President's fiscal 
year 2017 budget request. This revision plans to continue the 
procurement of both LCS designs in fiscal year 2017 in 
preparation for the down select to a single variant and 
transition to the frigate as early fiscal year 2018, but no 
later than fiscal year 2019. It also plans to procure LCS/
frigate ships through fiscal year 2025 for a total inventory of 
40 ships. As the Secretary of Defense testified on March 17, 
2016, ``. . . we're investing in LCS and frigates because we 
need the capability they provide, and for missions like 
minesweeping and anti-submarine warfare, they're expected to be 
very capable. The department's warfighting analysis called for 
40 small surface combatants, so that's how many we're buying . 
. . While this will somewhat reduce the number of LCS available 
for presence operations, that need will be met by higher-end 
ships . . . Under this rebalanced plan, we will still achieve 
our 308-ship goal within the next five years, and we will be 
better positioned as a force to effectively deter, and if 
necessary defeat, even the most advanced potential 
adversaries.'' Therefore, the committee requires, should the 
Secretary of Defense deem changes necessary, that the Secretary 
submit a waiver justification prior to revising or deviating 
from revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy. The waiver 
would be required to include the following related to such 
revision or deviation: the rationale, a determination that it 
is in the national security interest, a description of the 
changes, the resulting acquisition strategy, and independent 
cost estimates that compare the changes to revision three of 
the LCS acquisition strategy.
    The committee notes section 126(b) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
requires a quarterly report on LCS mission modules. This 
reporting requirement is addressed in subsection (a) of this 
provision. Therefore, the committee recommends striking 
subsection (b) of section 126 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
    Additionally, the committee recommends initiating or 
continuing the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 
System analysis necessary for future surface combatants, 
including the LCS replacement. It is essential that a follow-on 
small combatant be developed and procured starting in the 2020s 
to replace LCS, which begins retiring in the early-2030s. The 
committee believes the analytical assumptions for the follow-on 
small surface combatant must address the capability and 
survivability shortfalls of LCS in a high threat environment, 
including the ability to: attack enemy surface ships at over-
the-horizon ranges with multiple salvos, defend nearby 
noncombatant ships from air and missile threats as an escort, 
conduct long-duration escort or patrol missions without 
frequent refueling, and be built to Navy level one 
survivability design standards.
Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Navy to deem ship delivery to occur at the 
completion of the final phase of construction. The Secretary 
would be required to submit a certification to the 
congressional defense committees not later than January 1, 2017 
that certifies ship delivery dates have been adjusted, 
including the ship hull numbers and delivery date adjustments. 
The adjustments would be reflected in the budget of the 
President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
States Code, as well as Department of Defense Selected 
Acquisition Reports.
    The committee notes that justification materials, which 
accompanied the President's fiscal year 2016 and 2017 budgets, 
as well as Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports 
for the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program, list the 
delivery date of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) as June 2022. 
However, the Navy plans to deliver this ship in two phases. 
Phase I delivery, scheduled to complete in June 2022, will 
deliver the ship with full propulsion capability, aircraft 
launch and recovery systems, and safe to sail navigation 
systems. Phase II delivery, scheduled to complete in September 
2024, will add the remaining electronics and ordnance 
equipment, including the Ship Self-Defense System, weapons 
systems, and Enterprise Air Search Radar. The committee 
believes CVN-79 delivery should be deemed to occur at the end 
of Phase II delivery.
    Similarly, the committee understands all three ships in the 
Zumwalt-class will employ a dual delivery approach with hull, 
mechanical, and electrical (HM&E;) systems delivery at the 
shipbuilder in Maine and combat systems activation in 
California. In the case of USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), HM&E; 
delivery is scheduled for 2016 and combat systems activation is 
scheduled for 2018. The committee notes the President's fiscal 
year 2017 budget lists April 2016 as the delivery date. The 
committee believes Zumwalt-class delivery should be deemed to 
occur at the completion of the dual delivery approach, 
following combat systems activation.
    The committee is concerned the variance in the Navy's 
definition of ship delivery may obscure oversight of the 
program's schedule, including whether or not a project has 
breached its threshold delivery date. The committee is also 
concerned Navy ships are being delivered in various degrees of 
completion and then, after a period of availabilities and 
shakedowns, possibly several years later, the ship is delivered 
to the fleet for operations. CVN-79 and the Zumwalt-class 
programs illustrate this practice.
    Therefore, the committee also directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to submit a report, not later than 
March 1, 2017, that includes analysis and recommendations 
regarding the Navy's process for fully delivering ships from 
the time the Navy takes custody of the vessel until the vessels 
are fully complete and ready for operations. This review should 
examine the Navy's cost and schedule milestones throughout this 
process and how these milestones are reported to decision 
makers and oversight agencies. The review should also propose a 
common definition and criteria for Navy ship deliveries, 
including the associated dates.
Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding contracts (sec. 124)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
funds from being used to enter into or prepare to enter into 
sole source contracts for one or more Joint High Speed Vessels 
(JHSV) or Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPF) unless the 
Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional defense 
committees a certification and a report.
    The committee notes appropriations have been made in the 
past 2 years for JHSVs (now called EPFs) that were not 
requested by the President's budget or authorized by a National 
Defense Authorization Act. Since 2011, the Navy requirement for 
EPFs has been 10 ships. In 2013, this requirement was met with 
the procurement of the tenth EPF and the Navy planned to shut 
down the production line. Without an authorization or request 
in the President's budget, procurement of an eleventh EPF at a 
cost of $200.0 million was inserted in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 
113-235). Again without an authorization or request in the 
President's budget, a twelfth EPF was inserted at a cost of 
$225.0 million in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-113). Both of these EPFs 
were awarded to a single shipbuilder with no competition on a 
sole source contract.
    Therefore, this provision would require the Secretary of 
the Navy to submit a certification that, beginning with the EPF 
designated EPF 11, a sole source contract for one or more EPFs: 
(1) is in the national security interest of the United States; 
(2) will not result in exceeding the requirement for the ship 
class, as delineated in the most recent Navy Force Structure 
Assessment that currently stands at 308 ships, including 10 
EPFs; (3) will use a fixed price contract; (4) will include a 
fair and reasonable contract price as determined at the 
discretion of the Service Acquisition Executive; and (5) will 
provide for government purpose data rights of the ship design.
    In addition, the Secretary of the Navy would also be 
required to submit a report that includes: (1) the basis for 
awarding a non-competitive sole source contract and (2) a 
description of courses of action to achieve competitive ship or 
component-level contract awards in the future, should 
additional ships in the class be procured, including for each 
such course of action, a notional implementation schedule and 
associated cost savings, as compared to a sole source award.
Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced Arresting Gear 
        program (sec. 125)
    The committee recommends a provision that would restrict 
the obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2017 for research and development, design, procurement, or 
advanced procurement of materials for the Advanced Arresting 
Gear (AAG) to be installed on USS Enterprise (CVN-80) until the 
Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense 
committees the report required under section 2433a(c)(2) of 
title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as a Nunn-
McCurdy certification, for the AAG program.
    The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to 
deem the 2009 AAG acquisition program baseline as the original 
baseline estimate and to execute the requirements of sections 
2433 and 2433a of title 10, United States Code, as though the 
Department had submitted a Selected Acquisition Report with 
this baseline estimate included. This subsection provides 
clarity on the original baseline estimate, which is a necessary 
element of a Nunn-McCurdy review.
    The committee remains concerned with the current cost, 
schedule, and performance of the AAG program, which is on the 
critical path for the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, USS 
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The committee finds the AAG program 
has exceeded the program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) critical 
cost growth thresholds as prescribed in section 2433 of title 
10, United States Code.
    In 2009, the Navy reported what the committee understands 
to have been the last AAG acquisition program baseline (APB), 
which estimated AAG costs of: $331.0 million for development, 
$145.0 million for procurement, and a program acquisition unit 
cost of $123.0 million.
    In 2013, the program breached the major defense acquisition 
program (MDAP) threshold at which time the program should have 
been re-designated as an MDAP with a new APB. However, the 
Department did not take these actions. According to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), AAG breached the MDAP 
development threshold by November 2013 with estimated costs of: 
at least $480.0 million for development, $503 million for 
procurement, and a program acquisition unit cost of $246.0 
million. Although the Navy re-designated AAG as an MDAP (ACAT 
1C) in July 2015, the Navy still has not updated the APB or 
begun submitting Selected Acquisition Reports.
    In February 2016, the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2017 estimated AAG costs of: $927.0 million for 
development, and $483.0 million for procurement, from which the 
committee calculated a program acquisition unit cost of $353.0 
million.
    In April 2016, Navy officials provided the committee with 
an update, estimating AAG costs of: $1.3 billion for 
development, from which the committee calculated a program 
acquisition unit cost of $446.0 million.
    For the purposes of this provision, the committee considers 
the 2009 APB to constitute the original baseline estimate and 
the November 2013 GAO reporting to constitute the current 
baseline estimate. As a result, through February 2016, the 
committee finds the program acquisition unit cost has risen 
$230.0 million, or 186 percent compared to the original 
baseline estimate, and $107.0 million, or 43 percent, compared 
to the current baseline estimate. Based on both percentage 
increases, the committee finds the AAG program has exceeded the 
PAUC critical cost growth thresholds as prescribed in section 
2433 of title 10, United States Code, warranting a Nunn-McCurdy 
review.
    The committee is also concerned by other elements of the 
AAG program.
    First, the system development and demonstration contract 
schedule for delivery has more than quadrupled in length, while 
the AAG promised capability has yet to materialize.
    Second, a critical element of the Navy's business case for 
AAG was an ability to land the next generation of aircraft, 
both heavier and lighter than those in service today. A more 
sensitive braking system--featuring a water twister to absorb 
70 percent of the force--would recover these new aircraft 
safely and with less unnecessary stress. Facing persistent 
delays in software development, the committee notes that in 
February 2016, the Navy authorized an easing of these 
requirements to: (1) meet just the legacy Mark 7 operating 
envelope, (2) eliminate the requirement to backfit Nimitz-class 
carriers with AAG, and (3) redefine what constitutes initial 
operational capability for AAG.
    Third, the committee understands a fatigue life review of 
the water twister is on-going and may result in the need for a 
significant re-design of components in order to meet the 
requirement for a service life of 25 years, which Navy 
officials acknowledge it cannot currently meet. The Navy has 
already procured AAG systems for the first two Ford-class 
ships, which will require additional effort and cost to re-
design and fix.
    Fourth, the committee is concerned by the 18-month delay to 
re-designate AAG as an MDAP and the continued delay updating 
the APB and issuing Selected Acquisition Reports.
    Fifth, delays at the AAG land-based test site and with 
software development for recovering the full range of carrier 
air wing aircraft are unacceptable. In September 2015, Navy 
officials informed the committee that aircraft would be landing 
at the test site by the end of 2015. As of April 2016, this 
event has yet to occur.
    Sixth, as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
has noted in his annual reports, the reliability data the Navy 
is collecting is still not sufficient to determine if the mean 
time between failures will be acceptable. Additionally, the 
committee is concerned that high cycle testing--which is 
necessary to understand system performance under more realistic 
operational tempo--will not occur at the land-based test site 
until fiscal year 2018.
    Seventh, the committee understands that in January 2015 the 
Navy considered using the legacy Mark 7 arresting gear for USS 
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) instead of AAG, but decided to 
continue with AAG, in part because the installation of the Mark 
7 was estimated to cost $87.0 million more than AAG. This 
appears to be a shortsighted decision given the extraordinary 
and continuing development delays and cost growth, including 
more than $500.0 million since this decision was made in 
February 2015.
    The committee believes the Navy must pause and reconsider 
the way ahead, including the best business case, for the 
arresting gear on CVN-79 and CVN-80, and notes the Navy has 
already begun such a review. The committee believes returning 
to a variant of the Mark 7 arresting gear is a viable option 
that should be considered. The committee encourages the Navy to 
maximize competition and ensure government data rights of AAG, 
as well as of any other arresting gear that may be pursued.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a reassessment of the AAG program, in accordance 
with sections 2433 and 2433a of title 10, United States Code.

Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and USS 
        Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec. 126)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit more 
than 25 percent of funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for 
advance procurement or procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-
79) or USS Enterprise (CVN-80) from being obligated or expended 
until the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees.
    The committee notes the progress that has been made in 
controlling the cost of the Ford-class aircraft carrier 
program. In fiscal year 2008, the cost estimate of CVN-78 was 
$10.5 billion, CVN-79 was $9.2 billion, and CVN-80 was $10.7 
billion. In fiscal year 2015, these estimates had risen to 
$12.9 billion, $11.5 billion, and $13.9 billion, respectively. 
In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the estimates stood at 
$12.9 billion, $11.4 billion, and $12.9 billion, respectively.
    The Navy has largely attributed the progress made in 
arresting cost growth to ``design for affordability'' 
initiatives, which will improve efficiency and cost 
effectiveness in aircraft carrier construction. These 
initiatives require an investment of tens of millions of 
dollars to yield savings in excess of one billion dollars. The 
committee expects these initiatives to yield the projected 
savings and believes the Navy and industrial base are capable 
of achieving greater savings through these initiatives coupled 
with increased savings from: the Ford-class learning curve, 
CVN-80 repeating the design of CVN-79, and increased 
competition. To this end, the committee supported a series of 
provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) that required reports on cost 
reduction opportunities for CVN-79 and CVN-80 (sec. 128), 
alternatives for the future development of aircraft carriers 
(sec. 128), and independent studies of fleet platform 
architectures (sec. 1067). The committee expects the Navy to 
leverage these reports in identifying further cost reduction 
options for aircraft carriers.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
and Chief of Naval Operations to submit a report no later than 
December 1, 2016 that provides alternatives to achieve a CVN-80 
procurement end cost of $12.0 billion. In addition, the report 
shall describe all applicable CVN-80 alternatives that could be 
applied to CVN-79 to enable an $11.0 billion procurement end 
cost. The provision also requires the Secretary of the Navy and 
Chief of Naval Operations to provide annual progress reports 
compared to these end cost goals with the President's budget 
request.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of the funds for the 
Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II program 
until 60 days after the Secretary of the Navy submits the 
report on the TCTS II program required by section 235 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92).

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of A-
        10 aircraft (sec. 141)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 142 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) by extending the 
prohibition on obligation or expenditure of funds to retire or 
prepare to retire A-10 aircraft until the Secretary of the Air 
Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees describing their views on 
the results of the F-35A initial operational test and 
evaluation (IOT&E;). The provision would direct the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees that includes the results and 
findings of the F-35A IOT&E;, and also ensures the inclusion of 
comparison tests and evaluation of the F-35A and A-10C in 
conducting close air support, combat search and rescue, and 
airborne forward air controller missions. The provision would 
also require submission of a plan by the Secretary and Chief of 
Staff for addressing deficiencies and corrective actions 
identified in the report, and short- and long-term strategies 
for preserving the Air Force's capability to conduct the close 
air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air 
controller missions. Finally, the provision would direct the 
Comptroller General of the United States to assess the 
conclusions and assertions contained in the Secretary's and 
Chief of Staff's report on the F-35A IOT&E.;
    The committee understands the F-35A is scheduled to 
complete IOT&E; by fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned 
that while the Secretary of Defense announced on February 2, 
2016, that the A-10 would be replaced ``with F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighters on a squadron-by-squadron basis,'' the Air Force has 
announced its intention to start retiring A-10 aircraft in 
fiscal year 2018 even before the F-35A would complete IOT&E;, 
and certainly before the F-35A could be certified as a viable 
replacement capability for the A-10 in its assigned missions.
    To ensure realism under combat conditions, the committee 
directs the A-10C and F-35A comparative testing required under 
this provision to include, as a minimum, both pre-planned and 
emergency divert missions to address effectiveness in 
realistic, complex ground firefight scenarios. These scenarios 
must include simulated enemy forces in close proximity to 
friendly forces, where the pilot is required to visually 
identify the target and friendly forces in day and night 
conditions; armored targets; scenarios requiring continuous 
weapons delivery, command and control, extended time over 
target, and simulated collateral damage restrictions; deception 
scenarios with degraded visual environments; low-altitude 
employment, including ``shows of force'' and strafe; 
survivability from simulated direct hits by small arms fire, 
light anti-aircraft artillery, and man-portable air defense 
systems; scenarios in which simulated aircraft systems are 
damaged or degraded; scenarios conducted without joint tactical 
air controller or higher headquarters control to test close air 
support aircraft suitability for airborne forward air 
controller de-confliction of fires; and scenarios including 
joint fires coordination and timing, including Joint Air Attack 
Team attacks with Department of the Army aviation assets and 
artillery de-confliction.
    Combat search and rescue missions must compare 
effectiveness in the rescue mission commander role, 
coordinating all aspects of an extended combat search and 
rescue mission, and including as a minimum: locating, 
identifying, and protecting isolated personnel with continuous 
firepower, controlling other fighters as airborne forward air 
controller, coordinating electronic attack, intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, command and 
control, and rescue platform escort.
    Additionally, the committee expects the Secretary of the 
Air Force to provide the report required by section 142 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92), due by September 30, 2016, and based on that 
report, the committee may take further action on options for 
authorizing an A-10 replacement program.

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A-10 aircraft in 
        storage status (sec. 142)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the purpose of 
scrapping, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any A-10 
aircraft in any storage status in the Aerospace Maintenance and 
Regeneration Group (AMARG) that have serviceable wings or other 
components that could be used to prevent total active inventory 
A-10 aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable 
status due to unserviceable wings or other components.
    The provision would also specify a notification 
requirement, and would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to submit, with the fiscal year 2018 budget submission, and 
implement, a plan to prevent any total active inventory A-10 
aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable status for 
unserviceable wings or any other required component over the 
course of the future years defense plan.

Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C-5 aircraft 
        (sec. 143)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement in Section 141 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) for 
the Secretary of the Air Force to continue to preserve C-5 
aircraft, which were retired by the Air Force during a period 
in which the total inventory of strategic airlift aircraft was 
less than 301, in a storage condition that would allow recall 
of such aircraft to future service in the Air Force Reserve, 
Air National Guard, or active force structure.
    The committee recognizes that 27 C-5A aircraft are being 
inducted into or currently maintained in Type 1000 recallable 
storage. This type of preservation is costly and prevents the 
cost-effective reuse of needed C-5 parts, especially parts with 
diminishing manufacturing sources, necessary to sustain the 
total active inventory C-5 fleet.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement in section 136 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to 
maintain F-117A aircraft in a condition that would allow recall 
of that aircraft to future service.
    The committee recognizes that since this legislation was 
originally enacted, all F-22A program of record aircraft have 
been fielded, the Marine Corps has declared initial operational 
capability (IOC) of the F-35B fighter, and the Air Force is 
expected to declare IOC of the F-35A aircraft within its 
planned window of August to December 2016.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of funds for an EC-130H Compass Call 
recapitalization program unless the Air Force conducts a full 
and open competition for the replacement aircraft.
    The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rpt. 113-176) of 
the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (S. 2410) required the Secretary of the Air Force to 
develop and submit a plan to replace, modernize, or rehost the 
current Compass Call capabilities. Subsequently, section 143 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) required a plan for how the Air Force would 
recapitalize the capability requirement of the EC-130H Compass 
Call mission in the future, whether through a replacement 
program or by integrating such capabilities onto an existing 
platform.
    The committee is encouraged that the Air Force has 
submitted a plan. The plan appears to support the Air Force's 
conclusions, as well as provide aircraft mission availability 
to the combatant commanders at rates at least equal to the 
current capability.
    However, the committee is concerned by a significant shift 
in policy direction. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Air 
Force felt compelled to quickly divest half of the EC-130H 
fleet with no plan for replacing that lost capability. This 
year, the Air Force proposed a plan that assumes replacing EC-
130H capability is urgent, and that urgency does not allow 
enough time to conduct a full and open competition for the 
replacement platform.
    The committee believes the Air Force's proposal to 
recapitalize the EC-130H Compass Call aircraft using a sole 
source purchase of ten business class aircraft would not give 
us any confidence that the Air Force is achieving the maximum 
value for the American taxpayer. Additionally, allowing this 
sole source award to proceed could potentially prejudice source 
selections for other Air Force recapitalization programs, such 
as the program to replace the Joint Surveillance and Target 
Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of fiscal year 2017 and beyond funds for the Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 
recapitalization program unless the contract for engineering 
and manufacturing development (EMD) uses a firm fixed price 
contract structure.
    The committee believes a fixed price development and 
production contract structure is more appropriate for this 
program than a cost plus/incentive fee contract, as the 
program's aim is to integrate mission systems onto a commercial 
derivative aircraft, similarly to the KC-46A tanker 
recapitalization program.
    The committee recognizes the JSTARS recapitalization 
program offers significant advantages: decreased logistics 
footprint, reduced sustainment costs, increased operational 
flexibility, and extended operations into anti-access/area 
denial environments. However, the committee does not believe 
the divestment of any E-8C aircraft prior to the JSTARS 
recapitalization program entering into low rate initial 
production is a prudent course of action toward meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements. The committee 
understands the Air Force is currently conducting a study, 
expected to be completed in March 2017, to determine the extent 
of fatigue damage or other structural integrity issues with the 
E-8C fleet.
    The committee is also concerned with the ambiguity of the 
Acquisition Decision Memorandum, published on March 23, 2016, 
that states the Air Force should maintain a goal of 20 percent 
space, weight, power, and cooling (SWAP-C) margin through 
Milestone B to mitigate technical risk. This ambiguous 
requirement could have the effect of limiting industry 
competition and reducing the number of eligible aircraft 
solutions prior to a down-select decision for the EMD phase.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, not later than December 1, 2016, to provide a report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives that includes options to accelerate the JSTARS 
recapitalization program initial operational capability (IOC) 
to (1) fiscal year 2022, and (2) fiscal year 2023; and full 
operational capability (FOC) by fiscal years 2024 and 2025 
respectively, along with the funding plan needed to support 
accelerating the program for both IOC and FOC options; an 
analysis concerning the option of transferring the JSTARS 
recapitalization program to an Air Force program office that 
can execute a rapid acquisition program; a clarification of the 
20 percent SWAP-C margin and how it will be applied to source 
selection criteria; and an interim update on the study 
examining E-8C fatigue damage and structural integrity.

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


Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of aircraft 
        platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on the 
future mix of aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces.
    The committee is concerned that with many significant 
defense modernization programs scheduled to peak simultaneously 
in the middle of the next decade, informed strategic choices 
must be made on how the nation's resources will be applied to 
meet 21st century challenges. These strategic choices will 
include decisions on an optimized force mix of long-range 
versus medium/short-range intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance and/or strike platforms; manned versus unmanned 
platforms; observability characteristics; land-based versus 
sea-based; advanced or upgraded fourth-generation platforms of 
proven design; next generation air superiority capabilities; 
and promising, game-changing, advanced technology innovations.

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of certain cluster 
        munitions and report on Department of Defense policy and 
        cluster munitions (sec. 152)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
funds available for the destruction of cluster munitions until 
the Secretary of Defense submits a report on the Department's 
policy on and plan for cluster munitions. The committee notes 
that pursuant to the Department of Defense 2008 Policy on 
Cluster Munitions and Unintended Harm to Civilians, the 
military services and combatant commands, after December 31, 
2018 will no longer use cluster munitions which result in more 
than one percent unexploded ordnance. Additionally, cluster 
munitions sold or transferred by the Department after 2018 must 
meet this requirement. As a result, the Department is facing a 
situation that if not addressed immediately, will have 
significant--and negative--operational and budgetary 
consequences. The committee is aware that the Department of 
Defense is demilitarizing its legacy mechanical and contact-
fuzed weapons while relying on policy compliant sensor-fuzed 
munitions to meet specific requirements within Pacific Command, 
European Command, and Central Command areas of operation. The 
committee has learned that certain munitions that must be 
removed from DOD inventories can be refurbished and upgraded to 
comply with policy requirements at a significant cost savings 
compared to the procurement of new systems.
    The committee has received testimony from multiple senior 
military leaders that critical munitions shortfalls are a top 
priority and of concern. The committee strongly supports 
efforts to limit harm to innocent civilians from area 
munitions, and is concerned that approximately one-half of the 
U.S. Air Force's inventory of available area weapons will not 
meet the Department's standard of less than one percent failure 
rate once the 2008 policy comes into effect on January 1, 2019. 
The committee directs the Department to make all necessary 
efforts to ensure that our warfighters are not deprived of a 
critical combat capability on January 1, 2019.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than March 1, 2017, to provide the congressional 
defense committees a report on the Department's policy and 
plans for cluster munitions.

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

    The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM) is currently funding operations for a total of eight 
service-provided, but contractor-operated (also known as 
``GOCO'') manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) aircraft that are currently supporting counterterrorism 
operations overseas. The committee understands that two of 
these aircraft have reached the end of their service life and 
are scheduled to be replaced by two similar DHC-8 contractor-
owned, contractor-operated (COCO) Medium Altitude Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (MAISR) aircraft during fiscal 
year 2016. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for SOCOM 
includes $22.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Overseas 
Contingency Operations, for the acquisition of these two MAISR 
aircraft to enable them to be operated as GOCO aircraft. The 
committee also understands that a SOCOM analysis has determined 
that the cost avoidance of acquiring versus leasing the 
aircraft is approximately $1.3 million per month with a break 
even return on investment of approximately 11 months.
    The committee recognizes the continuing shortfall in the 
availability of ISR aircraft to support counterterrorism 
operations overseas. However, the committee is concerned with 
the piecemeal acquisition of ISR aircraft that do not clearly 
align with the SOCOM's ISR Roadmap and do not contribute to the 
fielding of a long-term manned MAISR solution to meet 
requirements. The committee believes that acquisition of manned 
ISR aircraft should be based upon the results of the SOCOM 
``Next Generation Manned ISR Analysis of Alternatives'' study 
scheduled to begin in July 2016.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of MAISR funds for the 
acquisition of MAISR aircraft in fiscal year 2017 until the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low 
Intensity Conflict, in consultation with the Commander of 
SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees with a 
report on the manned ISR requirements of the command and how 
such an acquisition aligns with the SOCOM ISR Roadmap.

                              Budget Items


                                  ARMY


Survivability Counter Measures

    The budget request included $9.6 million in line item 
AZ3507 of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for Survivability 
Counter Measures. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 
million in APA for aircraft Survivability Counter Measures. 
Additional funding for APS was included in the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded priority list.

Stryker upgrades

    The budget request included $444.6 million in line item 
G85200 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV;) for Stryker upgrades. The committee notes some 
funds are early to need for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in W&TCV; for Stryker 
upgrades.

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)

    The budget request included $480.2 million in line item 
GA0700 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV;) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee 
recommends an increase of $82.0 million in W&TCV; for the 
procurement and integration of active protection systems (APS). 
Additional funding for APS was included in the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded priority list.

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)

    The budget request included $480.2 million in line item 
GA0700 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV;) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee 
recommends an increase of $58.0 million in W&TCV; for the M1 
Abrams Tank industrial base improvement.

Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine Modification

    The budget request included $29.8 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV;). The 
committee notes other priorities in the FY 2017 budget. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in W&TCV.;

Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun

    The budget request included $0.0 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV;) for the Hand 
Gun. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in 
W&TCV.;

Army ammunition reduction

    The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA). Within that amount, $40.3 million was 
for LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All Types; $39.2 million was 
for LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; $5.1 million was for 
LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $46.6 million was for 
LIN 1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $7.7 million was for 
LIN 2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $118.1 million was for LIN 
3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $120.6 million was for LIN 
1120E22203 Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; $64.8 
million was for LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM & 
105MM, All Types; $6.1 million was for LIN 1430E91901 Non-
Lethal Ammunition, All Types; $10.0 million was for LIN 
2624EA0055 Items Less Than $5.0 Million (AMMO); and $17.2 
million was for LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition Peculiar Equipment.
    The committee understands portions of these requests are 
ahead of need based on analysis by the Government 
Accountability Office. The committee believes these funds can 
be better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the 
following: $2.6 million to LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All 
Types; $0.3 million to LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; 
$1.3 million to LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $4.7 
million to 1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $1.3 million to 
LIN 2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $6.3 million to LIN 
3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $2.8 million to LIN 1120E22203 
Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; $4.0 million to 
LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM & 105MM, All Types; 
$0.2 million to LIN 1430E91901 Non-Lethal Ammunition, All 
Types; $0.5 million to LIN 2624EA0055 Items Less Than $5.0 
Million (AMMO); and $3.7 million to LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition 
Peculiar Equipment.

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle

    The budget request included $00.0 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV;) for the High 
Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle. The committee recommends an 
increase of $21 million in OPA for the High Mobility Multi-
Purpose Vehicle.

Modification of in Service Equipment

    The budget request included $219.5 million in line item 
number DA0924 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for 
Modification of In-Service Equipment. The committee notes other 
priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in OPA for Modification 
of In-Service Equipment.

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical

    The budget request included $437.2 million in line item 
number BW7100 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). The committee notes an 
early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 
The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OPA 
for WIN-T.

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence Program)

    The budget request included $275.5 million in line item 
BZ7316 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distributed Common 
Ground System-Army (DCGS-A). The committee notes the program 
has changing tactical requirements for fiscal year 2017. 
Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $93.0 million 
in OPA for DCGS-A.

Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar

    The budget request included $99.9 million in line item 
B05201 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Light Weight 
Counter Mortar Radar (LCMR). The committee notes unjustified 
growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $12.5 million in OPA for LCMR.

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

    The budget request included $28.1 million in line item 
KA3100 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of 
In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator 
Rangefinder). The committee notes unjustified growth in the 
budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $6.5 million in OPA for Modification of In-Service 
Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder).

Counterfire Radars

    The budget request included $314.5 million in line item 
BA5500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Counterfire 
Radars. The committee recommends smoothing the production 
profile in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $36.0 million in OPA for Counterfire 
Radars.

Maneuver Control System

    The budget request included $151.3 million in line item 
BA9320 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Maneuver Control 
System (MCS). The committee notes an unjustified increase in 
the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $27.0 million in OPA for MCSs.

Automated Data Processing Equipment

    The budget request included $108.0 in Other Procurement, 
Army (CPA) for automated data processing equipment. The 
committee notes higher priorities in the budget for fiscal year 
2017. The committee recommends a reduction of $9.4 million in 
OPA for automated data processing equipment.

Army Contract Writing System

    The budget request included $1.0 million in Other 
Procurement Army (OPA) for Army Contract Writing System. The 
committee is concerned that the Army is planning to spend over 
$200.0 million on software to write contracts.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in OPA 
for Army Contract Writing System. The committee urges the Army 
to analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function.

Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water

    The budget request included $42.7 million in line item 
MA6000 in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distribution 
Systems, Petroleum and Water. The committee notes higher 
priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $10 million in OPA for Distribution 
Systems, Petroleum and Water.

Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems

    The budget request included $37.3 million in line item 
G05301 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Mobile Maintenance 
Equipment Systems. The committee notes an unjustified increase 
in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $5.0 million in OPA for Mobile Maintenance 
Equipment Systems.

Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies

    The budget request included $26.7 million in line item 
M05500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Construction 
Equipment Engineer Support Companies (ESP). The committee notes 
an unjustified increase in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 million in OPA for 
Engineer Support Equipment ESP.

Army Watercraft Extended Service Program

    The budget request included $21.9 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA), for Army Watercraft Extended Service 
Program. The committee notes higher priorities in the budget 
for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease of 
$11 million in Army Watercraft Extended Service Program

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3)

    The budget request included $67.4 million in line item 
MA4500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of 
In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3). The committee 
notes unjustified growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 
The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in OPA for 
Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 
3).

                                  Navy


F-35B Spares

    The budget request included $1.4 billion in line item 
number 605 of Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN) for Spares and 
Repair Parts. The committee notes the Marine Corps is planning 
on the first operational shipboard deployments of the F-35B in 
2018. Adequate spare parts are vital to maintain aircraft 
readiness and operational availability, particularly while 
operating at sea. Additional funding is necessary to ensure the 
deploying L-class ships have sufficient Afloat Spares Packages 
to support their F-35B detachments. This is a Commandant of the 
Marine Corps unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $50.8 million to APN, Spares and 
Repair Parts.

Tomahawk missile

    The budget request included $186.9 million in line item 
2101 of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for procurement of 100 
Tomahawk missiles. The Tomahawk remains a vital element of the 
nation's long range strike capability and will remain so for 
the foreseeable future. The committee supports the Navy's 
efforts to modernize the Tomahawk's navigation, communications, 
and seeker to maintain its advanced capability, but remains 
concerned about the path forward. The Tomahawk's replacement 
remains in the earliest of planning stages and its initial 
operating capability has been pushed back a further 4 to 6 
years from 2024 to the 2028-2030 timeframe. Nevertheless, the 
budget request funds production below the minimum sustaining 
rate and seeks to end production of new Tomahawks after fiscal 
year 2017. The committee is concerned that the Navy's plan 
presents significant risk in Tomahawk inventory levels and 
risks an unstable industrial base for the beginning of the 
recertification and modernization of existing Block IV missiles 
in 2019.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $84.2 
million in line item 2101 of WPN to maintain production at the 
minimum sustaining rate of 196 missiles.

AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile

    The budget request included $178.2 million in line item 
2327 of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for the AGM-88E 
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The committee 
supports the need for a capable anti-radiation guided missile 
to counter modern integrated air defense systems. However, the 
committee is concerned with the continued troubles experienced 
by the AARGM in operational testing. The committee is also 
concerned about problems with production processes, which led 
to a recent partial production shutdown.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million for this program to restore program accountability.

Ordnance support equipment

    The budget request included $59.1 million in line item 2500 
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN). The committee recommends an 
increase of $7.0 million.

Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction

    The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps (PANMC) of which $16.7 million 
was for LIN 1121 120mm, All Types and $8.5 million was for LIN 
1660 Items Less Than $5 million.
    The committee understands portions of these requests are 
ahead of need based on analysis by the Government 
Accountability Office. The committee believes these funds can 
be better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the 
following in PANMC: $4.0 million to LIN 1121 120mm, All Types 
and $2.5 million was for LIN 1660 Items Less Than $5 million.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

    The budget request included $3.2 billion in line item 9 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh 
Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51). The committee notes an 
additional destroyer was provided for in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which included incremental funding authority, and the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-113), which included $1.0 billion in funding. 
The committee further notes an additional $433.0 million is 
required to fully fund this additional destroyer. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $49.8 million to this 
program to provide the next increment of funding for the 
additional fiscal year 2016 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Littoral Combat Ship

    The budget request included $1.1 billion in line item 11 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of two 
Littoral Combat Ships. The committee notes unjustified unit 
cost growth in the other cost ($24.0 million) and other 
electronics ($4.0 million) categories, which increased without 
justification despite a quantity reduction compared to fiscal 
year 2016. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$28.0 million in procurement for this program.

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)

    The budget request included no funding in line item 13 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of 
the amphibious ship replacement LX(R), which is expected to 
functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships. The 
committee supports accelerating the construction of LX(R) class 
ships, provided the ships are competitively awarded. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for this 
program.

Destroyer modernization

    The budget request included $367.8 million in line item 9 
of Other Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee 
notes the Navy's DDG modernization program increases the 
fleet's Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Naval Integrated 
Fire Control--Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capacity, which improves 
the U.S. ability to pace high-end adversary weapons systems. 
One additional BMD/NIFC-CA modernization was a Chief of Naval 
Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $65.0 million to this program.

LCS common mission modules equipment

    The budget request included $27.8 million in line item 36 
of Other Procurement, Navy for LCS common mission modules 
equipment. This line item contains $12.2 million for mission 
bay training devices--MCM, which includes $3.7 million for 
training and support items associated with the remote 
minehunting system that was cancelled in 2016. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $3.7 million for this 
program.

Surveillance towed array sensor system

    The budget request included $36.1 million in line item 51 
of Other Procurement, Navy for the surveillance towed array 
sensor system (SURTASS). The committee notes an additional 
SURTASS array will increase operational availability of ready 
spares to outfit Pacific Fleet assets. This was a Chief of 
Naval Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to this program.

Surface electronic warfare improvement program

    The budget request included $274.9 million in line item 53 
of Other Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ-32. The committee notes 
the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) 
Block III provides for upgraded electromagnetic sensing and 
electronic attack capabilities for surface ships. Procuring one 
additional unit will increase fiscal year 2017 procurement from 
two to three systems, providing increased shipborne electronic 
attack and counter-targeting capabilities. This was a Chief of 
Naval Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $23.0 million to this program.

Minesweeping system replacement

    The budget request included $56.7 million in line item 62 
of Other Procurement, Navy for the minesweeping system 
replacement. Navy officials have stated systems procured in 
this line item are used for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
training. In fiscal year 2017, the request for this line item 
includes $20.5 million for two Knifefish systems and $4.0 
million for two Unmanned Influence Sweep System trainers. The 
committee notes fiscal year 2017 is the first year of 
procurement for Knifefish and the Unmanned Influence Sweep 
System in LCS mine countermeasures mission modules line item 
1601, and that the system will undergo developmental test and 
evaluation to verify it meets all technical requirements in 
fiscal year 2017. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $24.5 million for this program due to procurement 
ahead of need.

                               Air Force


UH-1N helicopter replacement program

    The budget request included $18.3 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the UH-1N helicopter 
replacement program. This program is intended to replace the 
over four decade-old helicopters currently in use for rapid 
security response team missions on the Air Force's 
intercontinental ballistic missile fields. These aircraft are 
growing increasingly unreliable due to approaching the end of 
their service lives, are more costly to maintain, and do not 
meet the minimum requirements necessary for the missile field 
security mission.
    The committee believes the Air Force's proposed approach to 
procure HH-60 helicopters from the U.S. Army's current multi-
year procurement contract, under The Economy Act of 1932, Title 
31, United States Code, sections 1535 and 1536, represents the 
most prudent method to rapidly field the necessary capability, 
leverages the Air Force's existing organic depot maintenance 
and supply chain for their current HH-60 and future Combat 
Rescue Helicopter fleets, avoids costly and lengthy development 
and testing of a completely new and different aircraft, and 
decreases both Army and Air Force aircraft procurement unit 
costs through economic order of quantity.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $302.3 
million in APAF for the procurement of eight HH-60 Blackhawk 
aircraft and initial spares and support equipment.

Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades

    The budget request included $97.3 million in Line Item 
F01600 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for F-16 
capability upgrades. Due to Air Force plans to field fourth 
generation fighters for a longer than expected period of time 
while awaiting deliveries in significant numbers of F-35A 
replacements, these aircraft must be upgraded with systems that 
will make them more operationally effective and survivable in 
the threat environments of the early to mid-2020 decade.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $48.3 
million for F-16 multi-mission computer and Multi-functional 
Information Distribution System--Joint Tactical Radio System 
(MIDS-JTRS), an increase of $12.0 million for F-16 active 
missile warning system, an increase of $23.0 million for F-16 
digital radar warning system, and an increase of $5.0 million 
for F-16 anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) upgrades. The 
committee recommends a total increase of $88.3 million in Line 
Item F01600 of APAF for these Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
fiscal year 2017 unfunded requirement list items.

Budget request realignments

    The Air Force requested that the committee make several 
realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their 
submission of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) and 
Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) documentation. The table 
below reflects these adjustments:

                  Changes to Correct Submission Errors
                              (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amount
              Item                  Account     Line  Item    Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC-130J........................          APAF            6            +1
MQ-9...........................          APAF           15        -$87.0
Initial Spares (MQ-9)..........          APAF           61        +$87.0
Initial Spares (EC-130H).......          APAF           61        -$25.6
Compass Call Mods..............          APAF           45        +$25.6
AFNET..........................          OPAF           40         -$5.1
Intel Comm Equipment...........          OPAF           15         +$5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Defense Wide


Mentor Protege reduction

    The budget request included $4.6 billion in LIN 30 
Procurement, Defense-Wide, (PDW) of which $29.2 million was for 
Major Equipment, OSD.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$23.1 million for the Mentor Protege program. The committee's 
analysis of this program indicates that a number of firms 
participating in the program as Proteges have received, in some 
cases significant, federal contract awards prior to the 
establishment of their Mentor-Protege agreements.
    The committee notes that in the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), the conferees required the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than February 
23, 2016 on changes to program policy and metrics that would 
ensure the program meets the goal of enhancing the defense 
supplier base in the most effective and efficient manner. The 
committee notes this report has not been submitted in 
accordance with the law, leaving concerns to the ongoing 
validity of this program.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.1 
million in LIN 30 PDW for Major Equipment, OSD.

MH-60M training loss replacement

    The budget request included $150.4 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 42, for rotary wing upgrades and 
sustainment. In August 2015, a U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM) MH-60M helicopter sustained heavy damage during an 
overseas training exercise and the aircraft was subsequently 
designated as a training loss. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an increase of $18.6 million for special operations-
peculiar modifications to one UH-60 provided to SOCOM by the 
Department of the Army for the replacement of the overseas 
training loss.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $10.6 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 51, for the acquisition and support of 
special operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude 
Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 
for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations 
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out 
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral 
damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $14.8 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 4 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time. The committee expects SOCOM to update the 
committee periodically on its procurement efforts under the 
MALET MQ-9 UAV program.

AC-130J A-kit procurement

    The budget request included $213.1 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 53, to field precision strike package 
kits for AC-130J aircraft. As a result of a decision to 
integrate the 105mm gun on the AC-130J, U.S. Special Operations 
Command has requested a transfer of $13.1 million designated 
for precision strike package kits to PDW, Line 54, for AC-130J 
A-kit procurement. Accordingly, the committee recommends a 
transfer of this amount.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis radar improvements

    The U.S. Navy has 84 destroyers and cruisers in the fleet 
equipped with the Aegis Weapon System, which includes the AN/
SPY-1 multifunction phased-array radar. The AN/SPY-1 is based 
on vacuum electronic device components, such as cross-field 
amplifiers, travelling wave tube transmitters, and microwave 
vacuum tubes.
    The committee understands newer, more efficient 
transmitters may be available that provide significant 
performance advantages, including: very low out-of-band 
emission, very low phase noise, reduced clutter, increased 
range, and greater electronic warfare capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, a report on AN/SPY-1 operational 
availability and sustainment challenges across the DDG-51 and 
CG-47 classes. The report shall also include the cost and 
benefits of options to address AN/SPY-1 obsolescence 
challenges, including the potential use of newer, more 
efficient transmitters.

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload

    The committee is concerned the Air Force is not fully 
implementing the tenets of the Department of Defense's Better 
Buying Power and the acquisition reform principles enacted in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) with regard to the Airborne Signals 
Intelligence Payload (ASIP) program.
    The committee is concerned the Air Force may be overstating 
integration risks which result in excessive life cycle costs in 
pursuing an ASIP program design, resulting in late-to-need 
upgrades in response to user requirements, and may not fully 
capitalize on commercially available, mature technology that an 
open competition would deliver.
    The committee expects the Air Force to engage in a full and 
open competition for ASIP Increment 2B to achieve improved 
capability for combatant commanders at a lower cost.

Army Modular Handgun System (MHS)

    The committee is concerned that the Army's effort to buy a 
new modular handgun system has taken more than 10 years and 
produced a more than 350-page requirements document.
    The committee is pleased that the Army finally released a 
request for proposal on August 28, 2015, and has now received 
multiple proposals from industry.
    The committee supports an effort to accelerate the 
procurement of a low cost weapon system that meets Army 
requirements and that is potentially a commercial off-the shelf 
and non-developmental item.
    The committee recommends the Army rapidly and competitively 
acquire a handgun by leveraging new acquisition authorities as 
detailed in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee further recommends 
pursuing a firm fixed price contract in accordance with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations part 12.

B-21 supply chain

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
provide a classified report to the congressional defense 
committees on foreign supply chain risk in the B-21 program. 
The report must be submitted with the President's Fiscal Year 
2018 budget request and shall include, at a minimum:
          (1) a description of any engineering or design 
        activities performed outside the United States;
          (2) a comprehensive list of sub-assemblies, 
        components, or parts that are being built, or will be 
        built or assembled outside the United States;
          (3) an assessment of supply chain risk related to 
        work performed on the B-21 outside the United States, 
        including, but not limited to, risks associated with 
        supply interruption; counterfeit, suspect-counterfeit 
        or nonconforming parts or quality assurance; and
          (4) a description of actions taken by the Air Force 
        to mitigate supply chain risks posed by work performed 
        on the B-21 outside the United States.

B-52 radar replacement program

    In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the Air Force is 
proposing to replace the B-52 mechanically-steered radar 
system, which dates to the 1960s, with a program considered a 
new start. In prior years, in reports directed by the Senate 
report accompanying S. 3254 (S. Rept. 112-173) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Senate 
report accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113-44) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Air Force 
continued to maintain such mechanically steered radars could be 
sustained through 2040.
    While the committee is pleased the Air Force is considering 
a replacement for the B-52 radar system, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees, not later than February 28, 2017, on the 
outcome of the analysis of alternatives that will be conducted 
to initiate this program, and how it differs from the prior 
analysis of alternatives conducted in 2011.
    In addition, as part of this report the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the system degradation of the existing B-
52 radar system and the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile in 
terms of weapon accuracy throughout the expected service life 
of the AGM-86.

C-130 engine enhancements

    The committee recognizes energy usage, specifically fuel 
consumption by the Air Force, continues to represent an 
overwhelming portion of Air Force operations and maintenance 
costs. To find ways to reduce fuel costs, the Air Force 
commissioned a study in 2006, funded industry research and 
development, and began an Engine Enhancement Program. These 
efforts result in increased service life and fuel economy of 
the T56 engine, and improved operational performance of the C-
130H aircraft, to include increased cargo capacity and range, 
as well as reduced takeoff distances. Congress authorized and 
appropriated funding to procure and install T56 3.5 engine 
upgrades in previous fiscal years. The committee notes the T56 
3.5 Engine Enhancement Program is included in the Air National 
Guard's 2015 Weapons Systems Modernization Priorities as a 
``significant major item shortage.''
    The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to continue 
ongoing testing of the T56 3.5 engine upgrade and other C-130 
propulsion system improvements to demonstrate capability 
improvements and fuel savings, and ultimately achieve reduced 
operations and sustainment costs.

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of 
        Defense F-35 deployment planning efforts

    The committee recognizes the importance of the F-35 
Lightning II program to our national defense. The F-35 will 
replace a variety of combat aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, 
and Marine Corps, representing the future of tactical air for 
the Department of Defense (DOD). In July 2015, the Marine Corps 
declared initial operating capability for the F-35B. The Marine 
Corps plans to deploy its first squadron of aircraft to Marine 
Corps Air Station Iwakuni (Japan) in 2017 as a permanent change 
of station for VMFA-121. This will signal the first operational 
deployment of both the F-35B aircraft platform and its 
associated Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and 
will provide an opportunity to prove operational concepts not 
only for the Marine Corps, but for the Air Force and Navy as 
well. Additionally, VMFA-121 is due to deploy aboard ship in 
2018, the F-35's first operational shipboard deployment. As the 
Marine Corps prepares to deploy the F-35B, opportunities also 
exist for DOD and the services to reexamine aircraft 
affordability and make adjustments as needed. The F-35 program 
is critical to the future of tactical air for the Armed Forces 
and DOD will need to operate and deploy the F-35 on a 
widespread basis in the coming years while managing costs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller 
General with preliminary observations due no later than March 
1, 2017 and a final report to follow, to review the DOD's 
ongoing F-35B deployment planning efforts. This review should 
include:
          (1) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to 
        support its initial F-35 deployment to Marine Corps Air 
        Station Iwakuni, including those related to personnel, 
        aircraft support equipment, base infrastructure, ALIS 
        integration, logistics, and spare parts;
          (2) The extent to which the Marine Corps' initial F-
        35B deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni will 
        enable U.S. Pacific Command to meet its operational 
        requirements;
          (3) The challenges the F-35B program faces with its 
        initial deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, 
        and the extent to which DOD plans to measure success, 
        challenges, and share lessons learned with the Air 
        Force and Navy; and
          (4) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to 
        support its initial F-35 deployment aboard ship, 
        including those related to personnel, aircraft support 
        equipment, ship modifications (including communication 
        and data links), ALIS integration, logistics, and spare 
        parts.

DDG-51 destroyer production gap

    The committee is concerned a production gap may occur 
between the current DDG-51 multi-year procurement contract, 
which concludes with the procurement of two ships in fiscal 
year 2017, and the follow-on contract scheduled to begin in 
fiscal year 2018. The committee notes a previous production gap 
in this program resulted in increased costs for both 
construction shipyards, as well as the broader vendor base. The 
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to prevent a DDG-51 
production gap to the maximum extent practicable.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the fiscal year 2018 
budget request that provides a plan to prevent a DDG-51 
production gap or, should the Secretary be unable to prevent a 
gap, provide mitigation options.

Department of Defense report on improvements to the munitions 
        requirements process

    The committee remains concerned about the state of the 
Department of Defense's munitions inventories. Years of 
budgetary neglect and high levels of operational use have 
stretched inventories in some critical munitions to dangerously 
low levels. While the committee supports the Department's 
renewed focus on procuring munitions in higher quantities, the 
committee remains concerned the Department's munitions 
requirements process remains inadequate to ensure inventories 
are managed without repeated descents into crisis. The 
committee understands the Department has made changes to the 
requirements process, improving the frequency and fidelity of 
required asset estimates. However, the committee remains 
concerned the process still does not adequately account for 
either activities short of major combat operations, such as 
current actions against Islamic State, nor transfers of 
munitions to our allies, which is an important element in 
support of our national military and diplomatic efforts.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Armed Services Committees of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act, on ways to improve the munitions 
requirements process, with particular emphasis on better 
accounting for actions short of major combat operations and 
transfers of munitions to our allied partners.
    The required report should be classified but shall include 
an unclassified executive summary.

E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet Block 40/45 
        upgrade

    The committee fully supports the ongoing efforts by the Air 
Force to upgrade its fleet of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control 
System (AWACS) aircraft and strongly encourages the Air Force 
to fully fund the Block 40/45 upgrade on its entire fleet of 
AWACS.

EA-18G Growler requirement

    As electronic warfare technologies and capabilities 
proliferate throughout the globe, to allies, partners, and 
potential adversaries alike, the committee believes airborne 
electronic attack will be increasingly vital to our joint 
warfighting force. Currently, the EA-18G Growler is the 
nation's premier airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft and 
will soon be the only tactical AEA aircraft platform. During a 
March 2016 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, stated that 
the current buy of 160 EA-18G Growlers was sufficient to do 
``the Navy's part'' of electronic warfare, but the Department 
was undergoing a process to study the need for Growlers to 
support the entire joint force. The committee believes the 
requirement for Growlers will not diminish, and will likely 
increase, as the Growler community continues to expand the 
tactics and concepts of operations of the aircraft's electronic 
surveillance and electronic attack capabilities and the Next 
Generation Jammer begins to enter the fleet in the early 2020s.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of 
this Act, to either revalidate the current requirement for the 
EA-18G Growler total program of record quantity or identify a 
new requirement for the total number of EA-18G aircraft the 
Department would ultimately procure. The report should include 
the relevant portions of the defense strategy, critical 
assumptions, priorities, and force sizing construct used to 
revalidate the current requirement. If a new requirement is 
identified, the report should include the overarching plan for 
fielding complementary weapons systems to meet combatant 
commander objectives.
    The required report may be classified, but must include an 
unclassified executive summary.

Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat teams

    The committee is concerned about the 82nd Airborne 
Division's urgent need for enhanced tactical mobility for 
infantry brigade combat teams outlined in the operational needs 
statement of March 2014. This statement was approved by XVIII 
(Airborne) Corps and subsequently by U.S. Army Forces Command. 
The committee strongly encourages the Army to rapidly acquire 
these vehicles using new authorities granted in the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92).

F-16 mission training centers

    The committee recognizes the ability to execute decisive 
air warfare requires realistic training. Various types of 
required real-world training activities are seldom conducted at 
Air National Guard bases due to limited availability of assets 
(i.e., lack of availability of dedicated adversary aircraft, 
realistic low level airspace for low altitude intercepts or 
engagements, and supersonic ranges). This lack of real-world 
training capability can be offset with modem and up to-date 
live, virtual, and constructive technologies available today.
    The committee fully supports and encourages Air Force and 
Air National Guard efforts to field additional F-16 block 40/50 
Mission Training Centers (MTC) that remotely connect to virtual 
networks to perform enterprise-wide training and mission 
rehearsal across diverse geographical locations. Additional MTC 
locations would provide Air National Guard aircrews the 
necessary continuity of training between live and virtual 
scenarios required to attain and sustain full combat mission 
readiness while reducing operations tempo, flying hour, and 
travel costs.

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance

    The committee recognizes the critical medical ground 
evacuation mission role filled by the High Mobility 
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance. The committee 
is concerned that the Army's current fleet of HMMWV ambulances 
in the active component is exceeding the expected useful life 
of the vehicle. Therefore, the committee directs the Army to 
develop a plan to deliver the next generation M997 A3 HMMWV 
ambulances focused on enhanced reliability and crew protection 
to accomplish their lifesaving mission.
    The committee supports the Army's ongoing requirement to 
maintain a HMMWV ambulance fleet capable of meeting the 
continued and varied mission roles for both the active and 
reserve components. The committee is aware of the successful 
effort underway to modernize the HMMWV ambulance fleet for the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve through the procurement of 
state-of-the-art HMMWV ambulances. The committee believes this 
model warrants consideration in order to field the maximum 
quantity of vehicles as expeditiously as possible.

Munitions availability

    The committee notes that from August 2014 to December 2015, 
the U.S. military dropped $1.3 billion in smart bombs and other 
guided munitions on ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria. The Air 
Force alone has fired more than 20,000 missiles and bombs 
against ISIL. This has resulted in a shortage of precision 
guided munitions. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have all 
voiced concerns about having insufficient munitions to meet 
requirements. In testimony before the House Armed Services 
Committee earlier this year, the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea 
confirmed that ``[W]e must maintain an adequate quantity of 
critical munitions to ensure alliance supremacy in the early 
days of conflict on the Peninsula. This requirement is further 
amplified by the approaching loss of cluster munitions due to 
shelf life expiration and the impending ban.'' High operational 
tempo has exacerbated what was already a critical situation. 
The committee is concerned by the fact the munitions industrial 
base has been strained to replenish previously depleted stocks, 
let alone keep up with current demand.
    Therefore, prior to submission of the Fiscal Year 2018 
budget, the Department of Defense will submit a written plan 
and provide a report to the congressional defense committees in 
the House and Senate on their plan to ensure sufficient 
munitions are funded, sustained and procured to meet planned 
Combat Commander requirements as well as existing and emerging 
contingency operational requirements. This plan should take 
into consideration emerging weapon systems, new technologies, 
replenishment of expended munition stockpiles, and the required 
removal of munitions due to age or capability, and upgrade and 
refurbishment of existing munitions.

Navy maritime security barriers

    As noted in the Senate report (S. Rept. 114-49) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (S. 1376), the committee believes that the department 
must seek to continually improve force protection measures and 
that security at Navy shipyards and bases depends not only on 
land-based security measures, but also on effective maritime 
barriers.
    As the Commander of Navy Installations Command, Vice 
Admiral Dixon Smith, testified on April 5, 2016, current Navy 
maritime security barriers do ``not meet the requirement for 
high-speed boats that could be used for a terrorist attack.''
    The committee understands the Navy is testing next 
generation maritime security barriers and notes Admiral Smith 
testified these barriers will have a better ability to stop 
vessels.
    The committee further understands that next generation 
maritime barriers may also provide improved protection against 
low profile surface threats, better ability to withstand 
multiple coordinated attacks, and better ability to endure 
environmental extremes.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the department's 
fiscal year 2018 budget request containing options to improve 
protection for Navy ships, shipyards, bases, equipment, and 
personnel, including the role that next generation maritime 
barriers could play in improving that protection.

Ohio-class replacement submarine program

    The committee understands the Navy plans to use a cost-plus 
contracting strategy for the design of the Ohio-class 
replacement program and potentially for procurement of the lead 
submarine in the class. The committee believes the Navy and 
contractors will have sufficient time between the first 
contract award of procurement funds in fiscal year 2017 and the 
fiscal year 2028 delivery of the lead submarine to reassess the 
lead submarine contracting strategy. The committee recommends 
the Navy transition to fixed price contracts for this program 
as quickly as possible, including modifying the lead submarine 
contract, because maintaining cost and schedule are vital to 
ensuring the first Ohio-class replacement submarine meets its 
U.S. Strategic Command requirement to conduct its first patrol 
in 2031.
    Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit 
a report with the President's budget for fiscal year 2018 to 
the congressional defense committees on how and when the Navy 
plans to transition to fixed price contracts for this program, 
including options to modify the lead submarine procurement 
contract.

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)

    The committee continues to support the Paladin Integrated 
Management (PIM) upgrade to the M109A6 Paladin, the primary 
indirect fire weapons platform in the US Army's Armored Brigade 
Combat Teams (ABCT). The PIM program upgrades both the M109A6 
Paladin howitzer and its companion ammunition resupply vehicle, 
the M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). 
PIM incorporates many new survivability enhancements to greatly 
increase the force protection levels of the crewmembers. The 
PIM program is critical to the US Army. It significantly 
improves force protection and survivability and reduces 
logistics burden for the Armored Brigade Combat team field 
artillery Soldiers.

Patriot Product Improvement

    The committee notes that the Army has requested $49.5 
million for the Patriot Product Improvement program. On July 
21, 2015, General Mark A. Milley, USA, Chief of Staff of the 
Army, testified that, ``Patriot plays a key role in not only 
acquiring and then destroying incoming fixed-wing aircraft, but 
also in intercepting and destroying incoming missiles. So 
Patriot is a very, very key system to the air defense of our 
allies and our own soldiers on the ground.'' The committee 
believes that our service members should have the best 
available air and missile defense capabilities. The committee 
understands that the Patriot Product Improvement program would 
provide required material upgrades to incorporate lessons 
learned, enhance joint force interoperability, and improve 
performance to address emerging threats. The committee supports 
the Army's request for Patriot Product Improvement funding.

Radiation detection technology

    The Committee is encouraged that the Army National Guard 
recently placed an order to help fill a shortfall in modern 
radiation detection devices. The committee is concerned, 
however, that shortfalls in fielding the most current radiation 
detection devices, specifically personal dosimeters, continue 
to exist, and most notably within the Army. To ensure our 
troops and domestic homeland first responders are provided with 
the best possible protection to monitor against nuclear 
exposure, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to 
expedite and complete the fielding of modern radiation 
detection equipment, specifically personal dosimeters, across 
the force.

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

    The committee is encouraged by the Air Force's progress in 
the restructured C-130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
Increments 1 and 2. The Air Force appears to have a solid path 
forward for AMP Increment 1 to upgrade all C-130H aircraft with 
safety upgrades, as well as airspace access compliance 
modifications by the deadline of January 1, 2020. The committee 
is also encouraged by the planned acceleration of the AMP 
Increment 2 phase well before the previously anticipated fiscal 
year 2042 completion date, moving estimated fleet completion 
forward to fiscal year 2028.
    The committee is concerned with the funding and manpower 
resources required to maintain the five previously modified C-
130H AMP aircraft at their current location. The committee 
understands that again modifying the previously modified C-130H 
AMP aircraft into the restructured AMP Increments 1 and 2 
configuration is likely cost-prohibitive.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 
December 1, 2016, on:
          (1) The anticipated annual resource requirements for 
        fiscal year 2017 and beyond to maintain the aircraft in 
        their current status and location;
          (2) Potential options, including feasibility and 
        costs, for declaring the five aircraft as excess to 
        military requirements and;
                  (a) opportunities for transfer to other 
                government agencies;
                  (b) foreign military sales;
                  (c) sales to private entities; or (d) any 
                combination of the options in subparagraphs 
                (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c);
          (3) Other disposition options.

Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in relation to 
        use of 75MM blank rounds

    The committee strongly concurs with the Chief of Staff of 
the Army's readiness guidance for calendar year 2016-2017 that, 
``readiness is #1 . . . and there is no other #1.'' The 
committee is also concerned that in the current fiscal 
environment, the Army may be expending and stockpiling 75MM 
blank rounds for ceremonial purposes, when those resources 
could be used to fund more urgent readiness priorities. The 
committee recognizes and understands that this policy is in 
accordance with Army Regulation 600-25 ``Salutes, Honors, and 
Visits of Courtesy'' issued on September 24, 2004.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review Army Regulation 600-25 in regard to the use of 
75MM blanks and provide an assessment and any recommended 
changes to that regulation to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 
2017.

Shipbuilding guarantees

    The committee is concerned with the efficacy of the Navy's 
use of guarantees in its shipbuilding contracts. In March 2016, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as a 
result of the Navy's contract type and terms, the government is 
paying shipbuilders profit to repair defects that were 
determined to be the shipbuilders' responsibility. The GAO 
recommended several actions aimed at improving the use of 
guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, including limiting profit for 
the correction of shipbuilder responsible defects.
    The committee understands the Navy agreed to study the 
issues in the GAO report and publish a complete response 
coordinated with the Office of the Secretary of Defense by 
September 30, 2016. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to provide the congressional defense committees the 
complete response at the same time this study is provided to 
the GAO. Further, as recommend by the GAO, in arrangements 
where the shipbuilder is paid to correct defects, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to structure contract terms 
such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for correcting 
construction deficiencies following delivery that are 
determined to be the shipbuilder's responsibility.

Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement

    On March 10, 2016, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and 
North American Aerospace Defense Command Admiral William 
Gortney testified before the committee that the operational 
exercise of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense 
Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) ``has been an opportunity 
for us to see how well JLENS can fit into the existing 
Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) of the National Capitol 
Region (NCR).'' Furthermore, he stated that, ``the JLENS system 
shows great promise in defense of the NCR,'' particularly in 
detecting cruise missile threats.
    The committee notes that certain adversaries are advancing 
their capability to deploy cruise missiles against the United 
States. The committee believes that technologies should be 
employed above the horizon to detect such cruise missile 
threats to the homeland. The committee is aware that the JLENS 
system could fill a sensitive capability gap within a layered 
missile defense architecture.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to 
submit to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 30, 2016, a plan for meeting this capability gap for 
the NCR. This plan should consider such options as restarting 
and completing the JLENS operational exercise, including at 
alternative sites.

USAF Eagle Vision program

    The committee is aware the Air Force's Eagle Vision program 
is a deployable ground station for collecting commercial, 
unclassified and releasable satellite imagery. It provides 
timely, flexible, and tailored products and services to 
warfighters and our domestic first responders. Eagle Vision 
excels in military operations, contingency operations, foreign 
humanitarian assistance, operational planning, and exercise 
support as well as playing a major role in disaster response 
world-wide, with a particular focus on responses here in the 
United States for events such as hurricanes and floods. In 2014 
and 2015, the Eagle Vision program directly supported more than 
85 disaster relief efforts, and since its inception has 
deployed over 40 times in support of major operations. However, 
the committee is concerned the Air Force has continually failed 
to address Eagle Vision program funding shortfalls, putting the 
system's critical operational capabilities at risk year after 
year.
    Therefore, not later than 60 days following the enactment 
of this Act, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the current funding status of the Eagle Vision 
program, the effects decreased funding levels will have on the 
Eagle Vision System's capabilities to support domestic disaster 
relief operations, the funding plans for the future, as well as 
the long-term plan for the continued use of the Eagle Vision 
system.

V-22 defensive weapon system

    The capabilities of the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft has led to 
significant demand for the aircraft within the U.S. military. 
The V-22 may be limited in certain circumstances where a lack 
of on-board defensive weapons and the absence of armed escorts 
could result in situations with too much risk resulting from 
employing the aircraft.
    At various times, Marine Corps and Special Operations 
Command officials have expressed a desire for providing better 
armament for their respective versions of the V-22. However, 
the committee is unaware of any formal requirement for such a 
capability. With the increasing usage of these aircraft, it is 
important for the committee to understand whether there is such 
a need, and, if there is, how the Department of Defense intends 
to fill that need.
    To support this effort, the committee directs the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps and Commander, U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) to report to the congressional 
defense committees on: (1) requirements that may be identified 
by the Marine Corps and USSOCOM; and (2) how the Department of 
Defense intends to meet those requirements. The Commandant and 
Commander, USSOCOM should submit that report no later than the 
submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2018.

Virginia-class submarines

    The committee recognizes the need for more fast attack 
submarines and supports Navy's plan to build two Virginia-class 
submarines per year with inclusion of the Virginia Payload 
Module beginning in fiscal year 2019. The committee is 
concerned that the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request 
includes only one Virginia- class submarine procurement in 
fiscal year 2021.
    The committee commends the performance of the Virginia-
class submarine program and supports the Navy's budget request 
for $3.2 billion in procurement and $1.8 billion in advanced 
procurement for this program in fiscal year 2017. The committee 
notes that on April 6, 2016, Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
for Research, Development, and Acquisition Sean Stackley 
testified, ``The Virginia-class submarine program has delivered 
the last eight ships on budget and ahead of schedule.''
    The Navy currently has a validated requirement for 48 
attack submarines, which was established in 2006. The committee 
believes that much has changed in the global security 
environment since 2006 and supports the Navy's effort to 
develop an updated requirement for attack submarines.
    While the Navy currently has a fleet of 53 attack 
submarines, as Admiral John Richardson testified on March 15, 
2016, the Navy is only ``able to meet about 50 to 60 percent of 
combatant commander demands right now'' for attack submarines. 
During the committee's hearing on the posture of U.S. Pacific 
Command, Admiral Harry Harris, Jr. affirmed that fact when he 
observed that Virginia-class ships are ``the best thing we 
have'' and that he ``cannot get enough of them fast enough'' 
for his theater of operations.
    Due to the retirement of Los Angeles-class submarines, the 
committee notes that the number of attack submarines in the 
fleet will decline by 23 percent to 41 submarines in 2029. The 
committee is concerned that the declining size of the attack 
submarine fleet, combined with a more challenging security 
environment and growing demand for the unique capabilities that 
attack submarines provide, will create additional national 
security risks.
    The committee was encouraged by the March 15, 2016 
testimony of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval 
Operations, as well as the April 6, 2016 testimony of Secretary 
Stackley and Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, who expressed a desire 
to procure two Virginia-class submarines in 2021 to mitigate 
the future attack submarine shortfall and highlighted an 
ongoing review into whether or not the Navy will accrue 
sufficient savings in the Ohio-class replacement and Virginia-
class submarine programs to enable procurement of a second 
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2021.
    The committee supports the efforts of Navy officials to 
pursue procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine in 
fiscal year 2021, if the Navy can demonstrate the submarine 
industrial base will have the production and workforce capacity 
necessary to procure a second attack submarine in fiscal year 
2021 without negatively impacting the Ohio-class replacement 
and Virginia-class submarine programs.
    The committee believes that it is important to provide the 
industrial base with advance notice of changes in the Virginia-
class submarine procurement profile, which enables the Navy and 
industrial base to maximize efficiencies, increase savings, and 
provide the lead time necessary to ensure workforce and 
production capacity are sufficient for the additional workload.

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

    The committee is aware that the Army's Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) is intended to be the 
foundation for the Army's tactical network modernization 
strategy and a critical component of the suite of tactical 
mission command systems currently being fielded. The Army 
assesses this program as essential to warfighter communications 
capabilities and will continue to deliver incremental 
improvements in command and control superiority over time. WIN-
T is to introduce a mobile, self-forming/self-healing network 
using satellite and terrestrial on-the-move capabilities and 
high-bandwidth radio systems to keep mobile forces connected, 
communicating, and synchronized. It has two increments.
    WIN-T Increment 1 (Inc 1) provides Networking ``At the 
Halt.'' It is the Army's current tactical network, originally 
fielded to 222 brigades, division/corps headquarters, and 
signal battalions. Initial fielding was from 2004-2012. The Inc 
1 capability was upgraded to use military satellites, reducing 
costs to commercial satellite leases. A subsequent upgrade to 
improve the efficiency of satellite communications and 
interoperability with other units will be completed in fiscal 
year 2016.
    WIN-T Inc 2 is intended to provide the Army with on-the-
move networking capability. The WIN-T Inc 2 network retains 
capabilities delivered by WIN-T Inc 1.WIN-T Inc 2 employs 
satellite communications while on-the-move to extend the 
network in maneuver brigade down to the Company level for the 
first time. The program is in full rate production. Total WIN-T 
costs to date are over $5.7 billion. The current program is 
intended to spend an additional $9.0 billion. The total program 
cost is estimated to be over $14.0 billion.
    Currently the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) has contracted with an independent entity to 
conduct a comprehensive assessment of the WIN-T program. CAPE 
is assessing current and future requirements and capabilities 
to determine the technological feasibility, achievability, 
suitability, and survivability of a tactical communications and 
data network.
    The committee has observed many problems with WIN-T, 
especially in regard to Inc 2. Many problems have been observed 
in integrating the ``upper tactical network'' with the ``lower 
tactical network.'' These problems disrupt connectivity between 
brigade combat teams and battalions with companies. Integrating 
WIN-T hardware with armored vehicles has yet to be conclusively 
determined. It is unclear if the Army has fully defined the 
requirements for tactical close combat forces at company level. 
The committee understands that the Army is reassessing the 
total requirement and determining a new course of action in 
light of the above noted problems.
    The committee encourages the Army in its efforts to repair 
identified problems and to more carefully redefine its 
requirements for the WIN-T program.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories 
        for research and development of technologies for military 
        missions (sec. 211)
    Since its establishment in section 219 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), the availability of funding for defense 
laboratories for the research and development of technologies 
for military missions has been extremely beneficial for 
Department of Defense laboratories. Among other things, 
laboratory directors have been able to use section 219 funding 
to carry out basic and applied research, transition promising 
technologies, and perform minor military construction of 
laboratory infrastructure. To expand the potential and the 
benefits of this funding mechanism even further, the committee 
recommends a provision that would raise the limit of section 
219 funds authorized to 4 percent of all funds available to a 
laboratory.
    Through various discussions with the Department of Defense, 
the committee has become aware that while laboratory directors 
welcome the provision and expenditure of section 219 funds, 
several have been hampered in using these authorities by 
policies or regulations of their respective service 
enterprises. Not only do such policies and regulations, which 
often restrict the amount of section 219 funds a lab can spend, 
undermine the purpose of providing this authority, but they 
also ignore the clear intent of the committee and of Congress 
as established in this statute. The committee directs all 
military services to examine policies and regulations impacting 
the expenditure of section 219 funds and to eliminate any 
restrictions on their use within 180 days of enactment of this 
Act.
    In addition, the recommended provision would remove the 
sunset date that is currently imposed on the section 219 
provision. After 7 years of implementation, the committee is 
satisfied that the section 219 program has been used 
effectively and has led to improvements in the operations of 
defense laboratories. The committee believes that the sunset 
provision is no longer necessary.
Making permanent authority for defense research and development rapid 
        innovation program (sec. 212)
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the 
fielding of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383). The committee further notes that the 
Department has established a competitive, merit-based process 
to solicit proposals from interested contractors, review and 
select projects based on military needs and standardized 
evaluation criteria, and award contracts to execute program 
projects. The committee is encouraged that the military 
services and other defense entities participating in the 
program have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor 
the execution of projects. In recognition of the success of the 
program, the committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to repeal the 
sunset provision of the Rapid Innovation Program and make the 
authorization of the program permanent.
Authorization for National Defense University and Defense Acquisition 
        University to enter into cooperative research and development 
        agreements (sec. 213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2165 and 1746 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Defense Acquisition University and the National 
Defense University to enter into cooperative agreements, which 
involve the provision of grant money, and cooperative research 
and development agreements with universities, not-for-profit 
institutions, and other entities to support their designated 
missions. The committee notes that this kind of engagement can 
support efforts to promote the rapid transfer of technology 
from defense research activities to commercial development or 
deployment in military systems, as well as to develop new 
acquisition practices, models, and tools to support efforts at 
continuous acquisition reform.
    The committee also recognizes that the National Security 
Technology Accelerator is an important pilot program making 
vital contributions in the field of technology innovation. The 
committee urges the National Defense University to continue to 
give priority to the work of the National Security Technology 
Accelerator and, using the authority in the recommended 
provision, enable it to work through university partners for 
the execution of its mission.
Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214)
    The committee recommends a provision that would spur the 
Department of Defense to provide grants to institutions of 
higher education, including technical and community colleges, 
for the purposes of enhancing education in manufacturing 
engineering. The provision would help institutions of higher 
education strengthen their engineering programs, bolster their 
efforts to focus on manufacturing engineering and curricula, 
and meet the growing demands of the 21st century manufacturing.
Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research programs and 
        activities of the Department of Defense science and technology 
        reinvention laboratories (sec. 215)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
micro-purchase threshold (MPT) in Department of Defense basic 
research and laboratories activities from $3,000 to $10,000. In 
raising this limit, this provision would allow appropriate 
organizations, such as universities, defense labs, and other 
performers, to authorize personnel, as appropriate, to have 
higher limits on their government purchase cards to facilitate 
easy and administratively efficient purchasing of small dollar 
items. This increase provided in the provision would affect 
less than one percent of federal contract spending, but could 
allow hundreds of thousands of transactions to be conducted 
more efficiently. This proposal would not make changes to the 
thresholds in the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (Public Law 71-798) 
or the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 
351-358). Nor would it change the threshold levels that are 
authorized during contingency operations or certain other types 
of emergencies.
    The committee believes that government purchase cards give 
agency end users an efficient tool to make simple purchases 
themselves and, at the same time, offer a number of additional 
benefits for both the agency and its vendors. In the two 
decades since the MPT was established, purchase cards have 
reduced transaction costs for government payment offices by 
lowering the number of budgetary/accounting entries that need 
to be processed in financial management systems, allowed 
agencies to earn rebates, and helped vendors receive timely 
payment without the burden of having to process government 
invoices. Equally important, by putting purchase cards into the 
hands of properly trained end users to make purchase directly, 
the burden of making micro-purchases has largely been lifted 
from the shoulders of contracting officers, allowing them to 
instead give greater attention to larger, more complex 
procurements, where their acquisition training and expertise 
can be put to better use and have greater impact.
    The committee notes that the MPT was adjusted for inflation 
in 2010 from $2,500 to $3,000 and that it would be adjusted 
again this year to $3,500, pursuant to authority provided in 41 
United States Code 1908. While these adjustments will help 
agencies to leverage the efficiencies of the purchase card for 
additional small dollar transactions, the committee understands 
that there are many needs in the defense research enterprise 
between $3,000 and $10,000 that can be more efficiently 
acquired with a purchase card in the hands of a trained end 
user. Some of these routine needs did not exist in the 1990s or 
2000s and therefore were not envisioned when the MPT level was 
first established. Such needs include digital services, web 
applications, application program interfaces, simple cloud 
services, scalable web hosting services, case management, 
platforms to support on-line interactive dialogues, IT systems 
monitoring, and tools to measure and improve digital customer 
experiences. All of these could be purchased easily by program 
and IT technical experts through existing government-wide and 
multi-agency contracts that include pre-negotiated terms and 
conditions which are well suited for small dollar purchases.
    The committee notes that data from the Council on 
Governmental Relations show that raising the MPT to $10,000 
will be a fair and safe harbor. In addition, a survey by the 
Association of Independent Research Institutes showed that 
setting the MPT at $10,000 provides coverage for approximately 
70 percent of total dollar expenditures while requiring only 3 
percent of total transactions to be individually examined, 
which is highly effective.
    The committee notes that purchase card activity must be 
conducted in accordance with strong financial management 
controls that help agencies detect and prevent fraud, waste and 
abuse. In the past 10 years, federal agencies have deployed a 
number of systems and internal controls to reduce the risk of 
fraud, waste, abuse, and misuse associated with the purchase 
card. Also for the Department of Defense, the Office of Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) maintains a robust 
website on the purchase card, which includes current policy 
documents and guides whose purpose is to help department 
officials establish and manage charge card programs. As 
required, DPAP publishes policies and procedures used by the 
department to ensure that the objectives of the purchase card 
program are realized and that an effective system of internal 
controls is in place to mitigate the potential for fraud, 
misuse, and abuse. Additionally, Defense policy requires all 
cardholders, approving officials, and certifying officials to 
complete basic purchase card training prior to assuming their 
official purchase card program roles and responsibilities. 
Purchase card refresher training is required every two years 
thereafter. The committee is encouraged that the department has 
implemented automated oversight systems to provide managers 
visibility of internal control effectiveness in mitigating the 
risk of improper purchases.
    Finally, the committee encourages the General Services 
Administration to continue to ensure there is appropriate 
transparency of purchase card activity so information on use of 
the purchase card below the micro-purchase threshold is 
available to the public, consistent with agency security 
requirements.
Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216)
    The committee remains concerned about the Department of 
Defense's inability to field an operational directed energy 
system. The committee is aware that the military services and 
industry partners have developed sufficient directed energy 
weapon capabilities for specific scenarios--like the High 
Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD) to counter rocket, 
artillery and mortar for base protection purposes and the 
Counter Electronics High Powered Microwave Advanced Missile 
Project (CHAMP) for disabling an adversary's electronics while 
avoiding collateral damage. These programs, as well as other 
high energy laser weapon systems, have been tested and 
demonstrated, but have failed to transition to acquisition 
programs of record.
    The committee notes that directed energy capabilities have 
the potential to support many operational missions in cost 
effective and efficient manners. In response to these factors, 
the committee recommends a provision that would amend section 
806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to grant rapid 
acquisition authorities for directed energy weapon systems to 
accelerate the development and fielding of this technology and 
to help offset the gains of potential adversaries.
    The committee notes that since 1960, the Department of 
Defense has invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy 
science and technology initiatives. However, the committee 
remains concerned that, despite this significant investment, 
the Department's directed energy initiatives are not resourced 
at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale 
acquisition programs. The committee notes with concern that 
years of investment have not to date resulted in any 
operational systems with high energy laser capability.
    The committee highlights that the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on Directed Energy Weapon Systems and Technology 
Applications found that ``directed energy offers promise as a 
transformational `game changer' in military operations, able to 
augment and improve operational capabilities in many areas.'' 
The task force further concluded that the range of potential 
applications is sufficient to warrant significantly increased 
attention to the scope and direction of efforts to assess, 
develop, and field appropriate laser, microwave, and millimeter 
wave weapons. Consistent with the findings of the task force, 
the committee believes that directed energy weapons systems 
offer significant benefits in terms of cost effectiveness, 
sustainability, magazine capabilities, and precision targeting.
Limitation on B-21 Engineering and Manufacturing Development program 
        funds (sec. 217)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of any fiscal year 2017 funds for 
the B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber engineering and manufacturing 
development (EMD) program until the Air Force discloses the 
value of the B-21 EMD contract award made on October 27, 2015, 
to the congressional defense committees.
Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive information to 
        contractors performing under contracts with Department of 
        Defense federally funded research and development centers (sec. 
        218)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
pilot program to permit the Department of Defense to provide 
Defense contractors performing under a Defense federally-funded 
research and development center contract with access to 
sensitive information necessary to carry out their assigned 
functions and duties.
    The committee notes that the contractors at such centers 
are currently prohibited from acquiring timely access to 
sensitive information, even in instances when performance and 
advancement could be negatively impacted. The committee also 
notes that because such contractors are not federal employees, 
they are not subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), 
and therefore are required to enact non-disclosure agreements 
with each individual entity responsible for the provision of 
sensitive information. However, the committee is concerned that 
non-disclosure agreements with private sector entities are 
often not feasible in a timely manner because such entities 
often do not respond to requests or may no longer exist. 
Particularly in cases where the federally-funded research and 
development center is maintaining a large database of sensitive 
information from many different entities, the committee is 
concerned that preventing contractors from accessing such 
information could be hugely detrimental to the work of the 
center.
    The committee notes that the recommended provision would 
enable the Department to more efficiently and effectively give 
contractors at such centers access to confidential commercial, 
financial, or proprietary information; technical data; or other 
privileged information owned by other defense contractors that 
is needed to perform mission critical work. The committee also 
notes that the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 35 
recognizes that to discharge responsibilities to the sponsoring 
agency, a Defense contractor performing under a federally-
funded research and development center contract must have 
access to government and supplier data, including sensitive and 
proprietary data, beyond that which is common to a normal 
contractual relationship.
    The committee notes that such contractors are considered 
``trusted agents'' and have the highly-valued ability to 
provide cutting-edge and objective expert advice. These 
contractors provide the government with special long-term 
research and development assistance that cannot be met by 
either existing in-house or other contractor resources. 
Additionally, the committee notes that the acquisition 
regulations make clear that it is not the government's intent 
for such contractors to use their status or access to 
information to compete with the private sector.
    The recommended provision would allow such contractors, 
upon agreement to protect such data, access to sensitive 
information necessary to carry out their function of providing 
long-term engineering, research, development, and other 
analytical needs that cannot be met by other employees or 
contractors. The provision would also make clear that such 
contractors are barred from using the information to gain a 
potential competitive advantage over other contractors.
Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense Advanced 
        Research Projects Agency and the service academies (sec. 219)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to assess 
the feasibility and advisability of enhanced interaction 
between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the 
service academies.
Modification of authority for use of operation and maintenance funds 
        for unspecified minor construction projects consisting of 
        laboratory revitalization (sec. 220)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authority to use minor military construction to revitalize 
antiquated laboratories and to increase the scope of the 
projects that are allowed under this provision to $6.0 million. 
Additionally, this provision would extend the authorization to 
2025.

                              Budget Items

Materials technology
    The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 0602105A 
for materials technology. The committee encourages the Army to 
continue to develop and rapidly field the Ground Vehicle 
Coating System (GVCS) that was developed by the Army Tank-
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) 
and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) as an affordable, 
infrared signature management coating for ground vehicles that 
is a drop-in enhancement to the current Chemical Agent 
Resistant Coating (CARC) coating system used on all Army and 
U.S. Marine Corps assets. GVCS has been evaluated in field 
trials and provided significant survivability benefits. At less 
than $10,000 per vehicle, GVCS provides project managers with 
an affordable means of improving signature while having zero 
impact to vehicle space, weight, and power. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 0602105A to fund 
the Department of Defense chemical agent resistant coating 
commodity manager requirements to field ground vehicle coating 
system material.
Sensors and electronic survivability
    The budget request included $36.1 million in PE 62120A for 
sensors and electronic survivability. The committee notes that 
a major thrust within the Department's Third Offset Initiative 
is the development and deployment of advanced robotic systems 
that can work in partnership with warfighters to enhance combat 
effectiveness. To support continued development of advanced 
human-robotics interaction capabilities, the committee 
recommends a general program increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62120A.
Social science research
    The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 62785A for 
the manpower, personnel, and training technology program. The 
committee notes that this program element conducts applied 
behavioral and social science research to enhance the overall 
military experience for soldiers. While the committee agrees 
that understanding performance, behavior, attitudes, and 
resilience is important for maintaining a strong fighting 
force, it recognizes that this work is not unique to the Army 
and furthermore that other organizations both in and out of 
government are better equipped to carry out social science 
research. In particular, the committee notes that research into 
leadership and culture, as well as research on personnel, is 
duplicative of other efforts. The committee is not convinced 
that such work is a high priority for the Army. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a program decrease of $5.0 million in PE 
62785A to reduce duplication while still preserving important 
portions of this program element, such as research into 
readiness and methods for reducing sexual harassment.

Army vehicle prototyping

    The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 63005A for 
combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. The 
committee notes that the Tank Automotive Research Development 
and Engineering Center possesses the facilities, procedures, 
workforce, and leadership to fully develop armored fighting 
vehicle prototypes and encourages the Army to fully exploit the 
unique capabilities of the Center. The committee understands 
that the Center can develop concepts to meet emerging 
requirements; test developmental concepts with soldier 
involvement; model, virtually test, and modify designs; 
integrate new technologies; and manufacture, test, and 
demonstrate prototypes. The committee believes that if the 
Center is employed to its full potential, future acquisition 
efforts would be accelerated and developmental costs would be 
reduced. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 
$50.0 million in PE 63005A for the funding of Project 440: 
advanced combat vehicle technology for demonstration or 
prototyping.

Electronic warfare technology

    The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 63270A for 
electronic warfare technology. The committee notes that each of 
the military services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have 
extensive programs and investments with a goal of advancing 
electronic warfare capabilities. The committee is concerned 
that these programs are not well-coordinated, nor are they 
leveraging the best available commercial technologies, 
particularly in areas such as dynamic spectrum-sharing. In 
particular, the committee notes that a significant portion of 
the budget request is for effective electronic warfare 
countermeasures. However, the committee notes that such 
countermeasures are not unique to the Army and therefore need 
coordination with other organization. To encourage the Army to 
collaborate more fully with others on electronic warfare 
countermeasures, the committee recommends a program decrease of 
$5.0 million in PE 63270A.

Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology

    The budget request included $44.2 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology. The 
committee notes that this program element matures and 
demonstrates technologies that allow soldiers to effectively 
collect, analyze, transfer, and display situational awareness 
information in a network-centric battlefield environment. The 
committee notes that much of the work performed in this program 
overlaps with efforts by other services. In addition, the 
committee understands that private sector firms are developing 
many of the same technologies that this program element is 
meant to address. Therefore, the committee recommends a program 
decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63772A, and encourages the Army 
to more closely coordinate its efforts with the services and 
with private sector. The committee notes that the recommended 
decrease would still allow the Army to continue research into 
the critical areas of the program element, such as command and 
control and situational awareness.

Small Arms Improvement

    The budget request included $7.6 billion for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army of which $10.6 million 
was for Small Arms improvement in PE 63827A Soldier Systems 
Advanced Development. The committee recommends an increase of 
$9.4 million to accelerate development of new small arms 
weapons and small arms ammunition improvements.

Army contract writing system

    The budget request included $20.7 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, for army 
contract writing system. The committee is concerned that the 
Army is planning to spend over $200.0 million on software to 
write contracts.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $20.7 million in 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, 
for Army contract writing system. The committee urges the Army 
to analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function.

Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army

    The budget request included $7.5 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;), Army, of which 
$155.6 million was for PE 605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay 
System--Army (IPPS-A).
    The committee is concerned with the significant cost 
increases to the program for Defense Information Systems Agency 
(DISA) services. Further, the committee is concerned regarding 
escalating program management support costs and facility and 
lease cost increases.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million for 
PE 605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army (IPPS-A) 
for Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army Increment 2.

Aircraft survivability development

    The budget request included $114.2 million in PE 0605051A 
for aircraft survivability development. The committee 
recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PE 0605051A.
    Additional funding for aircraft survivability development 
was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded 
priority list.

Technical information activities

    The budget request included $33.3 million in PE 0605803A 
for technical information activities. The committee recommends 
an increase of $2.5 million in PE 0605803A. Additional funding 
for the Army geospatial enterprise will improve the Army's 
ability to provide needed hardware and software to improve 
interoperability between mission command systems.

Aerostat joint project--COCOM exercise

    The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 0202429A 
for aerostat joint project-combatant command exercise. Due to 
operational mishaps the committee recommends a decrease of 
$41.0 million in PE 0202429A the aerostat joint project.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

    The budget request included $316.8 million in PE 0203735A 
for combat vehicle improvement programs. The committee 
recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 0203735A for the 
integration of active protection systems (APS) on Army armored 
fighting vehicles. Additional funding for APS was included on 
the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priority list.

Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2

    The budget request included $1,304.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) for RDT&E; Operational 
Systems Development, of which $25.2 million was for Army Global 
Combat Support System (GCSS) Increment 2.
    The committee is concerned that the Army has not completed 
Increment 1 of GCSS-Army and that the current plan for 
Increment 2 software upgrades will cost in excess of $200 
million over five years.
    The Committee recommends a reduction of $25.2 million in 
RDT&E;, line 196, Program Element 33141A, for Army Global Combat 
Support System Increment 2 and for the Army to provide 
alternatives to the committee regarding the need for the 
capabilities provided by Army Global Combat Support System 
Increment 2.

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System

    The budget request included $32.3 million in PE 0305208A 
for Distributed Common Ground/Surface System. The committee 
notes changing tactical requirements. Therefore the committee 
recommends a decrease of $32.0 million in PE 0305208A.

Undersea warfare applied research

    The budget request included $126.3 million in PE 62747N for 
undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes that 
undersea warfare is a key tenet of the Third Offset strategy, 
but that the development of next generation capabilities in 
this domain is required to address challenges in sensing, 
signature control, propulsion, and advanced materials. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 62747N.

Power projection advanced technology

    The budget request included $96.4 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology. The committee notes that 
the Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
Strategic Capabilities Office, and other elements within the 
Department of Defense are all pursuing advanced power 
projection technologies and systems. The committee is concerned 
that these efforts are not well-coordinated and have uncertain 
pathways for transition to programs of record. In addition, the 
committee notes that the budget request represents an almost 
200 percent increase over the amount enacted for fiscal year 
2016. The committee believes that such a large increase in 
budget is not warranted and is concerned about the ability of 
the programs to absorb the additional funding. Consequently, 
the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE 
63114N, but directs that this reduction not be assessed against 
solid state laser maturation efforts.

Capable manpower and power and energy

    The budget request included $249.1 million in PE 63673N for 
future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The 
activities listed under this program element include capable 
manpower and power and energy. The committee believes that the 
work plans for fiscal year 2017 on these activities does not 
warrant the level of funding included in the budget request. 
For example, the committee notes that the research included in 
these two projects include development of new personnel and 
management methodologies, and capabilities in energy security. 
Both of these efforts could be better coordinated with other 
organizations performing similar research. Consequently, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N 
to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower and power 
and energy.

Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle

    The budget request included $165.8 million in PE 63502N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of surface and 
shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee notes the 
Navy planned to spend $19.5 million in fiscal year 2016 on 
large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle product development. 
In fiscal year 2016, the Navy shifted the acquisition strategy 
from an industry prime contractor to a government lead system 
integrator. As a result, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$1.5 million to this program due to available prior year funds 
that were requested for source selection activities.

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules

    The budget request included $160.1 million in PE 63596N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of Littoral Combat 
Ship mission modules. The committee notes the Navy planned to 
spend $30.9 million in fiscal year 2016 to complete operational 
testing. Due to developmental test results, the Navy cancelled 
operational testing. As a result, the committee concurs with a 
Government Accountability Office finding and recommends a 
decrease of $30.9 million to this program due to available 
prior year funds.

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)

    The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 64454N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) of LX(R), 
which is expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 
class ships. The committee supports accelerating the 
construction of LX(R) class ships, provided the ships are 
competitively awarded. The committee notes the President's 
budget request reduced LX(R) RDTE funding in fiscal years 2017 
through 2019 by a total of $29.0 million. Navy officials have 
stated an additional $19.0 million is required in fiscal year 
2017 to maintain an accelerated schedule. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million for this 
program.

Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle

    The budget request included $75.6 million in PE 64536N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced 
undersea prototyping. The committee notes the President's 
budget request for this program element provides for the 
prototyping and testing of extra large unmanned undersea 
vehicles (XLUUV), including procurement of five vehicles and 
the lease of one vehicle. Based on the Navy budget 
justification information, the committee supports the 
procurement of two XLUUVs and the lease of a second similar 
vehicle. Understanding the operational need, the committee 
views the risk of developing five XLUUV prototypes concurrently 
as excessive and supports funding only the two XLUUVs that will 
begin fabrication in fiscal year 2017. The committee recognizes 
leasing a commercially available vehicle will enable refinement 
of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $34.4 million for this 
program.

Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits

    The budget request included $4.9 million for the Cyber 
Operations Technology Development program, Navy exhibit R-1, 
line 162, Program Element 36250M. The committee recommends an 
increase of $1.8 million to respond to a Marine Corps Unfunded 
Priority List (UPL) request for Cyber Protection Team (CPT) 
``fly-away'' kit hardware and software necessary to hunt 
malicious cyber actors, triage vulnerabilities, and remediate 
the intrusions and exploitation of compromised computer 
networks.

Management, technical, and international support

    The budget request included $87.1 million in PE 65853N of 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy for 
management, technical, and international support. The committee 
notes the following projects contain unjustified growth: 2098 
($4.3 million), 2221 ($3.9 million), 0149 ($1.0 million), and 
3330 ($1.6 million). Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $10.8 million to this program.

Aerospace propulsion

    The budget request included $185.7 million in PE 62203F for 
aerospace propulsion. The committee notes that the Department 
is continuing efforts to improve the performance and efficiency 
of advanced engine technologies to reduce costs and increase 
operational effectiveness. The committee also notes that the 
National Research Council's Air Force Studies Board recently 
found that ``to accelerate the development of new engine 
technologies, the Air Force gas turbine S&T; funding should be 
increased significantly'', including in areas such as ``high-
temperature, high-heat-sink fuels for thermal management, 
lightweight structures, and signature control.'' Consistent 
with this recommendation, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million in PE 62203F to support research on advanced 
turbine engine technologies.

High energy laser joint technology office

    The budget request included $42.3 million in PE 62890F for 
high energy laser research. The committee notes that this 
program element funds defense high energy laser applied 
research through the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office. 
However, the committee is concerned that the Joint Technology 
Office has not received sufficient funding in recent years to 
drive the maturation of high energy laser technology. As an 
example, the committee notes with concern that no laser 
technologies have yet been fielded or deployed, despite 
promising development and field tests. Given the importance of 
directed energy weapons systems in general as noted elsewhere 
in this Act, and of high energy laser systems in particular, 
the committee is concerned that budget request for this program 
element will be insufficient for supporting the joint 
technology office. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 62890F for the high energy laser 
joint technology office.

Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications

    The budget request contained $94.6 million in PE 63216F for 
aerospace propulsion and power. The committee notes that recent 
research in aerospace power electronics has concentrated on 
fundamental materials, devices, and power-handling capability.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should look for 
opportunities to accelerate the development of actual 
components to go into aircraft electrical systems, especially 
very high-current silicon carbide power modules. The committee 
recognizes that the increasing sophistication and energy 
requirements for new systems like avionics, motor drives, 
computing, sensors, and even high energy lasers, will place 
increasing demands on the power architectures available to the 
constrained size and weight of aircraft. The committee also 
believes that such advances will have beneficial effects when 
applied to legacy, as well as future generation, air platforms.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 63216F, for a total of $99.6 million, to support 
the development of application-specific power circuit 
development using silicon carbide modules.

Electronic combat technology

    The budget request included $58.3 million in PE 63270F for 
electronic combat technology. The committee notes that the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, Army, Navy, and Air Force all have new 
initiatives focused on outreach to Silicon Valley and are all 
exploring technology development programs related to command 
and control and networking technologies. The committee is 
concerned that these efforts are duplicative and not well-
coordinated. For example, the committee notes that a 
significant portion of the budget request is for effective 
electronic countermeasures. However, such technologies are not 
unique to the Air Force and therefore need coordination with 
other organizations. To encourage the Air Force to collaborate 
more fully with others on electronic warfare, the committee 
recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63270F.

Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration

    The budget request included $58.1 million in PE 63788F for 
battlespace knowledge development and demonstration. While the 
committee is supportive of this program element in general and 
understands the importance of making concrete progress in this 
field, it also notes that the budget request represents a 
significant increase of over 25 percent above the amount 
enacted for fiscal year 2016. The committee also notes that the 
amount enacted for fiscal year 2016 was itself an almost 35 
percent increase over the amount enacted for fiscal year 2015. 
The committee is concerned about the ability of this program 
element to absorb such a steep ramp-up in funding. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of 
$10.0 million in PE 63788F.

B-21 long range strike bomber

    The budget request included $1.36 billion in PE 64015F for 
the B-21 long range strike bomber. Due to a lower than expected 
contract award amount to the selected vendor, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $302.3 million in PE 64015F.

Operationally Responsive Space program

    The budget request included $7.9 million for the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit 
R-1, line 42, Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate the development of 
an operational demonstration of a Space Situation Awareness 
(SSA) satellite. This satellite is necessary for meeting U.S. 
Strategic Command requirements and will serve as risk reduction 
for a Space Based Space Surveillance Follow-on satellite. The 
committee also directs the ORS office to determine if the 
development of a small synthetic aperture radar satellite 
constellation could be used to meet any unmet combatant command 
requirements and to provide the congressional defense 
committees the results of that assessment no later than April 
1, 2017.

Advanced Pilot Training Program

    The budget request included $12.4 million in PE 65223F for 
the Advanced Pilot Training (APT) program. The Air Force 
decided to delay awarding the development contract from the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017 until the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $7.9 million in PE 65223F due to the availability 
of prior year funds.

KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program

    The budget request included $261.7 million in PE 65221F for 
KC-46A tanker development. Due to fewer than expected 
engineering change proposals and lower than expected test 
support costs, the Air Force will not obligate or expend funds 
at the budgeted rate.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 
million in PE 65221F due to availability of unobligated prior 
year funds. The committee understands that the reduction of 
these funds in fiscal year 2017 will not impact the program 
delivery schedule of the KC-46A tanker aircraft.

Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM

    The budget request included $228.1 million for the Evolved 
Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) MILSATCOM program, Air 
Force exhibit R-1, line 80, Program Element 65431F, BPAC 
657104. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million as 
a result of the delayed completion and submission to the 
congressional defense committees of an Analysis of Alternatives 
(AoA) for the follow-on capability for secure, survivable anti-
jam, anti-scintillation communications for strategic and 
tactical users.

B-2 Defensive Management System Modernization

    The budget request included $315.6 million in PE 65931F for 
the B-2 Defensive Management System modernization program. The 
program experienced a contract award delay affecting fiscal 
year 2016 funds. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 
of $26.7 million in PE 65931F due to availability of 
unobligated prior year funds.

MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing control system

    The budget request included $151.4 million in PE 25219F for 
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The committee recommends an 
increase of $35.1 million in PE 25219F for development and 
integration of MQ-9 Automatic Takeoff and Landing Control 
System (ATLCS) capability in support of the provision elsewhere 
in this Act for the transition to enlisted remotely piloted 
aircraft (RPA) operators.

Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM)

    The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, 
Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 
million was for PE 901538F Financial Management Information 
Systems Development.
    The committee notes that $4.9 million of this request was 
for the Air Force Cost Estimating Modeling (CEM). The committee 
believes this funding is unjustified.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.9 
million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 
Development for research and development of CEM and directs the 
Air Force to utilize or improve its existing cost estimating 
software as well as utilize resources from the office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation.

Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES)

    The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, 
Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 
million was for PE 901538F Financial Management Information 
Systems Development.
    The committee notes that $1.9 million of this request was 
for the Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES). The 
committee believes this funding is unjustified.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.9 
million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 
Development for PBES and directs the Air Force to utilize its 
existing enterprise research planning software systems as well 
as legacy systems to meet its budget formulation requirements.

Budget request realignments

    The Air Force requested the committee make a realignment in 
the budget to correct an error in their submission of the 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) 
documentation. The table below reflects this adjustment:

                   CHANGE TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS
                              (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Item                  Account     Line Item      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISPAN Inc 5....................        RDTEAF          124         -$8.9
ISPAN Inc 5 EMD................        RDTEAF         124a         +$8.9
Shared Early Warning Sys.......        RDTEAF          222         -$5.0
Atmospheric Warning Sys........        RDTEAF         222a         +$5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operational energy capability improvement increase

    The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) Defense-wide, of 
which $37.3 million was for the PE 0604055D8Z Operational 
Energy Capability Improvement.
    The committee recognizes the combat requirement to improve 
operational effectiveness via targeted and competitive 
operational energy science and technology investments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in RDT&E;, PE 0604055D8Z, for Operational Energy 
Capability Improvement.

Post intercept assessment acceleration

    The budget request included $439.6 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63896C, for 
Ballistic Missile Defense command and control in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million to allow earlier integration of command and 
control/battle management with the space-based kill assessment 
program by two years to field spiral 8.2-5 of increment 6 in 
fiscal year 2020.

Israeli cooperative missile defense program

    The budget request included $103.8 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 63913C, for 
Israeli Cooperative Programs in support of the Missile Defense 
Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $135.0 million 
in PE 63913C to reduce development risk and continue the 
modernization of Israeli's multi-tiered missile defense 
systems. The additional funding shall be apportioned as 
follows: $25.0 million for the Arrow-3 system; $50.0 million 
for the base-line Arrow program; and $60.0 million for the 
David's Sling program.

Ground based interceptor booster acceleration

    The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for 
improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$30.0 million to accelerate the development and initial 
fielding of an upgraded ground based interceptor booster to 
enhance survivability, mitigate current obsolescence and expand 
homeland defense capabilities against emerging threats. This 
acceleration would allow for earlier flight testing and 
accelerate the initial fielding and replacement of older 
boosters in fiscal year 2021 versus fiscal year 2022.

Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction

    The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for 
improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$25.0 million to accelerate the system engineering and risk 
reduction testing to reduce schedule risks for a critical 
design review for the redesigned kill vehicle program in late 
fiscal year 2017 and the first flight test in fiscal year 2018.

Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation

    The budget request included $71.5 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64894C, for 
the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle in support of the Missile 
Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 
million to fund technology maturation and risk reduction for 
key technologies, including advanced sensors and new propulsion 
systems critical to enabling the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle.

High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft

    The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) Defense-wide, of 
which $10.4 million was for the PE 0603923D8Z Coalition 
Warfare.
    The committee recognizes the combat requirement for more 
persistent and long endurance unmanned aircraft systems on the 
battlefield.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 
million in RDT&E;, PE 0603923D8Z, for high altitude long 
endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft systems.

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase

    The budget request included $6.9 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E;) for Advanced 
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $3.8 million was 
for PE 0604016D8Z Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion 
Program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
consistently underfunds the DOD Corrosion Program. The DOD 
estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost 
approximately $22.9 billion annually to prevent and mitigate 
corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, weapons, 
facilities, and other infrastructure.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in RDT&E;, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program.

Directed energy systems prototyping

    The budget request included no money in PE 64342D8Z for 
defense technology offsets. The committee notes with 
disappointment that the administration did not view it as a 
priority to request funds through this program element. 
Particularly with the high-profile emphasis placed on the 
Department of Defense's Third Offset Strategy, the committee is 
disappointed to see this program be unfunded. In addition, as 
noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is deeply 
disappointed with how the technology offset funding enacted in 
fiscal year 2016 was allocated. As noted, none of the money was 
put towards directed energy, in contradiction to the clear 
intent of Congress that half of the money be used to bolster 
directed energy technologies. While the committee does not 
recommend additional unrestricted funds for the technology 
offsets program, the committee underscores that directed energy 
systems are still critical areas of work in need of greater 
support and attention. The committee believes that the 
Department needs to focus in particular on the transition from 
lab development to deployment and fielding. Consequently, the 
committee recommends a general increase of $25.0 million in PE 
64342D8Z to be used only for the purposes of directed energy 
systems prototyping.

Development test and evaluation

    The budget request included $19.5 million in PE 65804D8Z 
for development test and evaluation. The committee notes that 
the Department continues to underinvest in developmental test 
and evaluation activities. A lack of robust developmental 
testing inevitably results in failures in operational testing. 
The failures of programs to meet their established testing 
requirements lead to cost growth and schedule slippage, as the 
programs make expensive and necessary fixes to systems. The 
committee feels that more robust development testing, combined 
with more disciplined and technically realistic requirements 
generation will improve acquisition program outcomes. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 65804D8Z to support enhanced development test and 
evaluation capabilities.

Information Systems Security Program at the National Security Agency

    The budget request included more than $1.1 billion for the 
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in the National 
Security Agency (NSA), which is approximately one-third of the 
total ISSP budget for the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
committee recommends, as follows, a net reduction of $30.0 
million from NSA's ISSP Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation (RDT&E;), (program element 33140G), and Operations 
and Maintenance (O&M;) budgets, because of higher priorities, 
duplication of effort, and the need to reduce overhead costs:
          (1)Fusion, Analysis, and Mitigation project:
                  -$5.0 million in RDT&E;
                  -$5.0 million in O&M;
          (2) Information Assurance project:
                  -$10.0 million in O&M;
          (3) Enterprise and Business Management subproject:
                  -$3.0 million O&M;
          (4) Strategic Engagement, Integration, and Foreign 
        Affairs project:
                  -$4.0 million O&M;
          (5) Cryptographic Platform Engineering project:
                  -$3.0 million RDT&E;
                  -$5.0 million O&M;
          (6) Enterprise Trusted Systems for Advanced Cross 
        Domain Solutions project:
                  +$5.0 million RDT&E;
    As noted above, the committee recommends an increase for 
cross-domain solutions because cross-domain systems represent 
one of the most significant vulnerabilities for classified 
networks--where they connect to less-secure networks. The 
committee is concerned that the budget for this NSA program to 
enhance the security of cross-domain solutions and to modernize 
them for cloud environments has been disproportionately cut in 
recent years. In addition to the increase of $5.0 million, the 
committee recommends that the DOD Chief Information Security 
Officer consider transferring resources to this project from 
the Active Cyber Defense and Cyber Situational Awareness 
subprojects, as these efforts appear redundant to other DOD 
programs and compete with commercial solutions and Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency programs.

Sharkseer 2.0

    The budget request included unspecified amounts for the 
Sharkseer program, Defense-Wide exhibit R-1, line 203, Program 
Element 33140G. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 
million for research and development to extend the Sharkseer 
architecture, connections, and information sharing beyond the 
perimeter defense boundary.
    The committee has strongly supported the Sharkseer program 
since its inception as a novel effort to rapidly acquire and 
integrate advanced commercial cybersecurity technology for 
detecting intrusions and malware for which signatures are not 
already known. Sharkseer is being deployed at all Department of 
Defense (DOD) perimeter gateways to filter web traffic, and by 
all accounts is performing well.
    The committee has been concerned that DOD's cybersecurity 
solutions have tended to be deployed in piecemeal fashion, as 
isolated, stand-alone capabilities. Perimeter defenses, 
endpoint/host-based capabilities, continuous monitoring and 
asset management capabilities, the patchwork of incident 
response and remediation tools, intermediate-level regional 
security systems, ``big data'' analytics of masses of packet 
and session metadata, and the tools and activities of Cyber 
Protection Teams and Computer Network Defense Service Providers 
are not interoperable, are not tied together under overarching 
concepts of operation and architectures, and cannot seamlessly 
and instantly share machine-readable indicators of compromise 
or otherwise tip and cue each other.
    The committee is concerned that despite the billions of 
dollars invested in perimeter defense, the department's ability 
to rapidly identify and remediate cyber vulnerabilities remains 
time and resource intensive. Because of this stove-piped nature 
of the existing architecture, the committee is concerned that 
the department's ability to defend the Department of Defense 
Information Network against future adversaries will be limited 
by its ability to network its many sensors to identify 
malicious activities and rapidly isolate and remediate that 
malicious activity in cyber relevant time frames.
    The committee is aware of the productive efforts of joint 
working groups, composed of experts from the Principal Cyber 
Adviser's cross-functional team, the Joint Staff, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
and the Chief Information Officer, to define operational views, 
requirements, and plans for the foundational building blocks 
for integrated cyber operations, such as the Unified Platform. 
Likewise, United States Cyber Command staff are grappling with 
the same issues and exploring commercial technology solutions. 
The committee also notes the sustained efforts of the DOD Chief 
Information Security Officer (CISO) to create an integrated 
cybersecurity enterprise capability with limited resources and 
authority.
    The committee believes that the Sharkseer team has the 
vision, technical depth, and connections across the enterprise 
and in commercial industry to play an effective role in 
achieving the goal of an integrated cybersecurity enterprise. 
The committee directs the Sharkseer program to apply additional 
funding to develop and demonstrate integration of cybersecurity 
tools and processes across the network layers and systems, 
under the guidance of the DOD CISO and the Commander of U.S. 
Cyber Command.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $17.8 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), PE 
1105219BB, for the development, integration, and testing of 
special operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude 
Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 
for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations 
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out 
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral 
damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $12.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 4 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time. The committee expects SOCOM to update the 
committee periodically on its development efforts under the 
MALET MQ-9 UAV program.

Sharkseer email protection

    The budget request for the Defense Information Systems 
Agency (DISA) does not include funds to sustain the effort to 
extend the Sharkseer ``zero-day net defense'' capability to the 
email traffic flowing across the gateway boundaries of the 
Department of Defense (DOD). Sharkseer is already deploying to 
all DISA Internet gateway nodes to defend DOD networks against 
malicious hidden activity in web traffic. The committee 
believes it makes little sense to filter web traffic for 
previously unknown threats while leaving email traffic 
unprotected against the same types of threats. Congress 
provided additional funds in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to assist DISA and 
the Sharkseer program office in the National Security Agency in 
getting started on this extension of zero day net defense to 
email. The committee recommends an increase of $11.7 million in 
DISA's Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance account, and 
$16.3 million in Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation (program element 33140K) to sustain this initiative.

                       Items of Special Interest


Active protection systems

    The committee encourages the Army, in cooperation with the 
United States Marine Corps, to rapidly acquire effective active 
protection systems (APS) to protect ground combat forces and 
weapon systems from projectiles including rocket propelled 
grenades and anti-tank, wire guided missiles. Key armored 
fighting vehicles such as M1 main battle tanks, Bradley 
fighting vehicles, Stryker vehicles, and armored assault 
vehicles should be given first priority for APS due to their 
mission profiles. The committee understands that APS technology 
is mature and fielded by some of our allies. The committee 
encourages the Army to acquire non-developmental, mature 
designs for integration and testing with our vehicles. The 
committee believes that such an effort will increase both force 
protection and combat power of our close combat maneuver 
forces.

Advanced airlift airship technology

    The committee has maintained an ongoing interest in 
advanced lighter-than-air (LTA) airship technology that has the 
potential to add much needed cutting-edge capabilities for the 
Department of Defense. Among other things, airship technology 
can enhance logistics, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (ISR), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief 
(HA/DR), and Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO).
    The committee is aware that multiple advanced airship 
technology efforts during the past 20 years have all failed to 
establish conclusively the value of advanced lighter-than-air 
technology by not demonstrating clear proofs of technical 
viability and the benefits of superior operating utility. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81), recognizing that Department of Defense airship 
development appeared disparate, directed the Secretary of 
Defense to designate a senior official with responsibility for 
Department airship programs, to delineate this official's 
responsibilities and to submit reports on Department hybrid 
airship operational concepts and future development strategies. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66) further recognized the failure to 
consolidate a structured path forward and re-affirmed the 
committee's belief in the transformational potential of 
advanced technology airships. That legislation noted U.S. 
Transportation Command's stated opinion that airships possess 
the nascent capability to enhance mobility substantially.
    While some have advanced the idea of waiting for commercial 
firms to develop airship logistics capability, the committee is 
concerned that this strategy would allow the Department to 
evade development responsibility. However, the committee notes 
that several failed attempts by the commercial sector argue for 
the involvement of the expertise of the Department. The 
committee understands that properly identified, the required 
technologies already exist or are near final states of 
development. Within the wherewithal of the Department of 
Defense, these technologies could be demonstrated en route to a 
successfully executed advanced airship program. Engaged 
leadership and full program involvement of the Department is 
essential for advanced airship success.
    The committee also understands that there are obstacles to 
a successful commercial initiative including development risk, 
fiscal investment requirements, and the potential for 
disruptive change to existing airlift technologies. 
Nevertheless, the committee believes that the rewards of 
exemplar government technology investments are, today, 
ubiquitous within the commercial arena and clearly show how 
timely involvement may have later broad-based national 
benefits.
    The committee believes that a new advanced airship program 
must address two primary risk areas. First, for airship outsize 
airlift, the most pressing discrete problem remains cargo off-
loading without the airship instantly becoming too light for 
safe operation. Development of a robust, responsive and wide 
bandwidth buoyancy-ballast system that supports full vertical 
flight capability is essential and must be demonstrated 
convincingly and early. Second, a system of systems, involving 
lift, control and unique lighter-than-air flight technology, 
represents a demanding integration challenge and should be 
resolved before committing to final airship design and 
development.
    An incremental early ``iron bird'' demonstration with 
proving metrics and appropriate program off-ramps may provide 
the best way to establish core program viability and a path 
towards a full airship demonstration. This would be more 
soundly based than previous program strategies and could 
resolve the most critical risks before committing to the full 
flight demonstration.
    The committee believes that there is a strong justification 
to pursue airlift airship concepts and encourages the Air 
Force, Army, United States Transportation Command, and other 
appropriate defense organizations to become more proactive in 
developing advanced airship mobility needs and capability 
requirements that both lead and stimulate emerging 
demonstration plans.
    The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall:
          (1) Reaffirm leadership and responsibilities for 
        airship technical initiatives within the Department of 
        Defense;
          (2) Develop a strategy for future Department airship 
        technologies that takes ownership of maturation efforts 
        consistent with airship outsize airlift capability to 
        identify:
                  (a) Critical technology challenges (in 
                addition to the aforementioned) and methods to 
                demonstrate viability;
                  (b) Development risks and lessons learned;
                  (c) Impediments to successful demonstration, 
                including an assessment of in-house 
                understanding of airship technology;
          (3) Develop notional estimates for time, costs and 
        other necessary resources to conduct an incremental 
        demonstration for technical viability with suitable 
        decision points and off-ramps.

Advanced weapons technology

    The committee recognizes the increased risk of exposure to 
chemical and biological agents faced by deployed U.S. and 
coalition forces. The committee believes it is critical to have 
the ability to expedite collection and characterize these 
agents in near real time. To meet this requirement, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 
accelerate the fabrication, prototyping and testing of 
capabilities to detect and classify chemical and biological 
agents that will provide needed battlefield intelligence and 
increase the protective posture of U.S. and coalition forces.

Assessment of status of little used research and development 
        infrastructure assets

    The committee is concerned that certain research and 
development infrastructure assets employed by the military 
services are prematurely decommissioned or otherwise dismantled 
prior to a general accounting and assessment of the value and 
utility of such assets to the Department of Defense as a whole. 
Given the immense expense involved in establishing and standing 
up infrastructure assets, it is critical that decision on the 
final disposition of such assets not be made on parochial, 
short-term considerations. The committee believes that these 
assets may still have broader defense-wide and national utility 
and that such utility needs to be assessed before any decisions 
are made.
    To help alleviate this concern, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to identify such ``orphan'' assets that 
support Research and Development and Test and Evaluation. The 
definition of these assets shall be the same as the definition 
developed for the study provided to the Congress in October 
2010 pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to address ``Orphan 
Assets''. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a list 
of these assets, along with a description of the need for these 
assets, to the congressional defense committees no later than 
one year after the enactment of this Act.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition

    The committee is aware that the U.S. Army is testing an 
alternative transmission for the family of Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles, which includes the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle 
(AMPV) and Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) programs. 
Assuming a successful test, the committee understands that the 
Army will assess the cost and benefits of an alternative 
transmission and then conduct a full and open competition to 
integrate a new transmission into the family of Bradley 
Fighting Vehicles. The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 
2017 budget request does not include funding to support the 
alternative transmission strategy. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
report on the full and open competition for the family of 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle transmissions. The required report 
must be submitted no later than January 15, 2017, and include 
details regarding the Army's test report on the alternative 
transmission, the acquisition strategy and schedule, and the 
funding plan to support the competition.

Conformal phased array antennas

    The committee notes that there have been recent substantive 
improvements in antenna technology, providing enhanced 
capabilities to aircraft and unmanned aerial systems. 
Additionally, the committee is aware that these same platforms 
face environments where it would be useful for antennae to 
operate on different frequency bands and to be reconfigurable 
in flight. The committee believes that these enhanced 
capabilities could be critically important in improving sensing 
in constrained or contested aerial environments. Consequently, 
the committee encourages the Navy to examine research 
opportunities to develop the fundamental theory, modeling, 
demonstration, and control of super-adaptable conformal phased 
array antennae.

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

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
undertaken a third offset initiative to help maintain the 
military technological superiority of the United States. Much 
like the previous two offset initiatives, the committee is 
encouraged to learn that the Department recognizes that our 
adversaries are rapidly developing technologies and strategies 
that can rival those of the United States and that the 
Department, in theory, is taking steps to avert such a 
scenario.
    As the committee expressed in the Senate report 
accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114-49) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, since World War II, the 
United States has never faced a more sophisticated and 
comprehensive array of challenges that threaten to undermine 
the integrity of the global security that the United States has 
underwritten for seven decades. Without rapid innovation and 
bold commitment to technology development and deployment, the 
committee believes that the United States could be in danger of 
ceding its authority as the unparalleled military leader in the 
world today. This concern is made all the more stark by the 
fact that our adversaries seem to be able to innovate advanced 
technologies more quickly and efficiently that the Department 
of Defense, which continues to be hampered by outdated 
practices and regulations. The committee believes that the 
ability and foresight necessary to pivot to critical 
technologies and bring them to development and deployment in an 
expedited manner is critical to maintaining the status of the 
United States in global security.
    In recognition of these issues, to express support for the 
Department's third offset initiative, and to assist the 
Department in accelerating the program as much as would be 
reasonable, the Congress established a technology offset 
program in section 218 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This program, as 
laid out in the authorizing legislation, would provide the 
Department of Defense with additional funds on an annual basis 
to carry out research, development, prototyping, deployment, 
and rapid fielding of critical offset technologies. In 
developing this initiative, the committee authorized the 
Secretary of Defense up to $400.0 million for use towards 
technology offsets. While the committee ultimately gave the 
Secretary latitude to determine the most critical technologies 
on which to expend these funds, it also recommended that the 
Department focus on six technologies that the committee 
believes to be most vital for maintaining our military 
technological superiority. In particularly, the committee noted 
its clear intent that approximately half of the authorized 
funds be used for technologies related to directed energy.
    Although the level of funding was ultimately reduced to 
$100.0 million through the Defense appropriations process, the 
committee believed that the program could still serve as a test 
case to determine the Department's commitment to and 
understanding of the technology offsets initiative. Despite the 
lower level of funding, the committee had intended to ramp up 
available funds in subsequent years as the Department 
demonstrated its ability to use the money wisely and 
effectively for technology offset activities.
    The committee is alarmed to learn that this initial $100.0 
million funding has been allocated by the Defense Department to 
activities that are tangential, at best, to the technology 
offset initiative. In fact, of the $100.0 million, the 
committee believes that only $6.0 million has been put toward 
true offset technologies. With such a breakdown, the committee 
is unfortunately left to conclude that the Department has used 
money to pay its bills, rather than focus on technologies that 
are vital to the military technological superiority of the 
United States. Most distressingly, the committee was 
disappointed to learn that none of the money was put toward 
directed energy technologies, thereby showing a comprehensive 
lack of regard for the clear intentions laid out by the 
committee and by the Congress as a whole. Taken together, the 
committee is concerned that the Department is not focusing on 
strengthening the core mission capability of our military in 
terms of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Directed 
energy can fundamentally change warfare, much like precision-
guided weapons did when developed during the second offsets 
efforts.
    In addition, the authorizing legislation clearly lays out a 
procedure whereby the funds should be competed internally with 
clear criteria and identifying purposes and priorities for the 
use of the funds. The legislation also directs the Secretary to 
solicit applications from across the defense research and 
development enterprise for use of the funds. The committee was 
concerned to learn that unfortunately none of this occurred 
before the money was allocated.
    Given these circumstances, the committee has no choice but 
to refrain from providing additional funding authorization for 
the technology offset program. Given the Department's clear 
disregard for the intent of the committee and of Congress in 
providing the technology offset funding, the committee is 
unable to justify further expenditure. Without some sort of 
assurance or demonstration from the Department that it can 
manage technology offsets funding in a responsible manner, the 
committee believes that any additional funding for this program 
would be similarly misused.
    The committee notes that the Department has said publicly 
that up to $18.0 billion is being devoted to offset technology. 
Despite repeated requests for a breakdown of this claim and an 
accounting for where this funding is being applied, the 
committee remains unaware of the specifics of how the 
technology offset program is being carried out. Given the 
Department's performance regarding the authorized offset funds, 
the committee remains wary of the Department's ability to truly 
carry out a third offset program and see it through to 
fruition.

Digital polarimetric radar development

    The committee notes that there have been major advances in 
the field of radar development with respect to incorporating 
both polarimetric and phased array radar technology into an 
all-digital design. The committee considers the development of 
this technology as a critical enabler for the Navy in the 
development of increased sensing, discrete object tracking 
(especially small unmanned aerial vehicles), interference 
avoidance, spectral dominance, electronic warfare, dynamic 
aperture sharing, and multi-function/multi-objective 
capabilities. Consequently, the committee encourages the Navy 
to examine research opportunities to create an all-digital 
polarimetric phased array radar for future use in small object 
sensing and tracking, and dynamic aperture tasking for 
spectrally-contested and dense-target electronic warfare 
environments.

Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories

    The committee is concerned that it takes unreasonable 
amounts of time to hire experienced individuals at defense 
laboratories, sometimes exceeding over a year. As a result, a 
sizeable percentage of authorized billets at DOD laboratories 
remain vacant due to lengthy delays as well as competition from 
the private sector. This committee notes that these delays 
occur despite expedited authorities authorized by this 
committee in a series of provisions in previous National 
Defense Authorization Acts.
    Given the Department's ``Third Offset'' strategy and the 
fact that these laboratories play a critical role in driving 
the key technologies of that strategy, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General to conduct an assessment of the 
different hiring structures at military laboratories across the 
services, compare the time it takes to hire personnel, assess 
whether certain laboratories are using existing expedited 
hiring authorities effectively, and what recommendations it has 
to enable laboratories to accelerate the hiring process.

Human augmentation technology for industrial operations

    The committee commends the Office of Naval Research (ONR) 
Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program for its renewed 
efforts toward understanding the benefits of human industrial 
operations augmentation technology that improves the health and 
safety of the workforce and reduces the total ownership cost 
(TOC) of Naval assets.
    The committee notes that the Navy Metalworking Center (NMC) 
and ManTech recently highlighted cost and labor savings on 
projects such as the DD 51 of over 20-30 percent through the 
use of exoskeleton-based human augmentation technologies. The 
committee continues to be interested in technological advances 
that help reduce the labor component of TOC by increasing 
productivity, improving quality, and reducing costs associated 
with workplace injuries related to repetitive motions.
    Following the success of this initial program, the 
Committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue to 
develop these technologies with a goal of broad implementation 
of commercially-available human industrial operations 
augmentation technologies for the construction, maintenance, 
repair, and disposal of Navy assets.

Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities

    The committee notes that a key element of the Third Offset 
strategy is the development of high speed and hypersonic 
capabilities to support defense missions such as global and 
precision strike; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR); and access to space. The committee notes 
that advanced research and development in this area depends on 
world class testing facilities, including high speed wind 
tunnels, as well as world class technical and engineering 
talent. Recently, in its ''Hypersonic Weapons and US National 
Security: A 21st Century Breakthrough'' report, the independent 
Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies found that Congress 
and DOD must adequately support continued operation and 
upgrading of the national hypersonic technology infrastructure, 
particularly unique test tools and research facilities for 
undertaking both ground-based and full-flight testing and 
research. The committee notes that this bill authorizes a 
significant increase in support for hypersonics test 
capability, as requested by the President. Further, the 
committee recommends that the Department of Defense, working 
through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Test 
Resource Management Center, and the Air Force, continue to 
explore the development of wind tunnel test capabilities to 
support development of hypersonic military systems.

Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis

    Historic scientific literature has noted that certain 
compounds when combined with anthrax inhibit the immune 
response effecting the ability of a prophylaxis drug to 
effectively treat exposure or vaccines to protect from 
exposure. Unknown at the present is whether naturally occurring 
compounds such as aflatoxins when combined with anthrax causes 
such a suppression. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to conduct a peer-reviewed study to assess the efficacy of 
such a combination or other such immunosuppression agents and, 
where applicable, develop a controlled experimental regime to 
assess the applicability of these combined agents. The peer-
reviewed study and experimental plan shall be due to the 
congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 
2017.

Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery technology

    The committee supports the efforts of the Department of 
Defense, including those of the military services, to improve 
battery technology. In addition, the committee recommends 
continued research and development of nanoscale techniques to 
improve battery technology as it relates to improving military 
capabilities on the battlefield.

Laser weapon system demonstrator

    The Committee commends the Navy for initiating and funding 
the Laser Weapon Systems Demonstrator (LWSD) and believes that 
this is an important step toward maturing technologies that 
could ultimately enable the deployment of a shipboard maritime 
laser weapons system. While the Committee understands that the 
Navy envisions transitioning laser weapons to a formal Program 
of Record in the 2020s, it appears that the Navy has not 
programmed funding beyond the LWSD sea-based tests to support 
the installation of LWSD on a DDG or for the design and 
procurement of a formal maritime laser program.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of the Navy will 
keep the congressional defense committees updated on its plan 
to seamlessly transition the LWSD to a shipboard weapons system 
following sea-based testing and to a formal maritime laser 
Program of Record, technical progress toward developing the 
capability, and programmatic steps being taken to move to 
demonstration and deployment of advanced laser systems.

Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control test capability

    The committee notes the operational benefits and cost 
savings that propulsion and machinery control test capabilities 
have provided the Navy, including for Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers, Zumwalt-class destroyers, and Whidbey Island-class 
dock landing ships. The committee is concerned by a series of 
recent significant and costly engineering casualties on 
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), including: mechanical failures 
contributing to USS Freedom being underway for just 35 percent 
of its deployment in the 7th Fleet area of responsibility in 
2013, a fuel valve and combining gear failure on the USS 
Milwaukee in 2015, and a combining gear casualty on USS Fort 
Worth in 2016. The committee believes establishing a LCS 
propulsion and machinery control test capability would provide 
the Navy with a critical resource that is currently lacking to 
troubleshoot issues, identify root causes of casualties, and 
provide in-depth training to sailors. The net effect of such a 
test capability would be to reduce the time, cost, and 
inexperience associated with LCS propulsion and machinery 
control casualties.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations to consider 
establishing an LCS propulsion and machinery control test 
capability for both the LCS Freedom and Independence classes.

Long-range threat detection

    The Committee is aware of advances the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is making in long-range threat detection to 
safely detect explosives and explosive constituent chemicals 
from long distances. The Committee encourages DOD to engage 
with industry and academia to pursue further innovation in this 
field, including the development of cost effective threat 
sensor systems to support defense missions.
    The Committee notes that DOD should emphasize capabilities 
that can provide real-time detection, with the greatest 
possible standoff and lowest false alarm rates, and which are 
portable enough to be used with mobile, aerial, and sea-based 
platforms.

Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio

    Modernizing battlefield communications is a critical 
priority for the Army. The Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio 
(MNVR) provides the backbone for the Army's tactical network, 
connecting lower-echelon radios those at the brigade and 
battalion level. These two channel networking radios reduce 
reliance on satellite communications for the Army's command and 
control capability. The Committee fully funded this program and 
encourages the Army to maintain its testing schedule in order 
to meet fielding requirements.

Military medical photonics

    The committee notes that military medical photonics 
research improves battlefield patient care using photomedicine 
technologies and exemplifies how mission-oriented research can 
benefit both military and civilian populations. The committee 
is encouraged by recent breakthroughs in this research, 
including major technology advances in burn and wound 
management, tissue imaging and bonding for vascular and 
reconstructive surgery, diagnosis and treatment of major eye 
diseases and trauma, critical care sensors and monitors, early 
assessment of inhalation airway injury, rapid imaging of 
coronary artery disease, and normalization of severe scarring 
from wounds of war.
    The committee notes that funding for military medical 
photonics research decreased significantly in the Department of 
Defense's budget planning for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, but 
was subsequently restored to $6.0 million by the Department in 
each of those years in accordance with congressional guidance. 
This program has made great progress in the development of 
important, innovative technologies for battlefield medicine. 
The committee expects that the Department will continue to fund 
this important work at an appropriate level.

MQ-XX

    The committee believes the Navy needs to rapidly introduce 
a carrier-launched unmanned aircraft into the carrier air wing. 
While the committee continues to believe that the Navy should 
develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-
launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of 
missions in a non-permissive environment, the committee 
believes the MQ-XX moves the Navy in the right direction while 
filling critical tanking and intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance missions for the carrier air wing.
    The committee notes that on February 26, 2016, Chief of 
Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson stated, ``I like this 
way forward for carrier-based unmanned aircraft to be sort of a 
poster child for how we should do acquisition. We're going to 
get something on deck as soon as we can that will fulfill a 
valid need--tanking and ISR--on that aircraft carrier and for 
that air wing.''
    The committee is concerned that despite the service chief's 
emphasis on this program, current plans will require 10 years 
to field the MQ-XX. According to Navy budget documents, the 
first MQ-XX land-based flight will not occur until fiscal year 
2022 and the initial operational capability will not occur 
until fiscal year 2026. Given the years of effort and millions 
of dollars of investment already spent to bring an unmanned 
aircraft to the carrier, including the successful demonstration 
of the capability with the X-47B, the committee believes this 
timeline is unacceptably long and does not meet the CNO's 
intent for a model acquisition program done at speed. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018, which includes: (1) a detailed 
MQ-XX program schedule through initial operational capability, 
and (2) detailed options to accelerate MQ-XX.

Night Vision Device Reset

    The committee believes night vision systems are an 
essential capability for successful conventional military and 
counterterrorism operations, and one in which the United States 
must keep its qualitative advantage.
    The committee is concerned that more than half of the 
approximately 480,000 fielded AN/PVS-14 monocular night vision 
devices provide significantly lower level performance than 
those possessed by potential adversaries-leaving U.S. forces at 
a capability mismatch given the access of potential adversaries 
to more advanced French, Russian, and Chinese night vision 
devices. In addition, extensive delays in developing and 
fielding a digital image intensified alternative are being 
experienced by Special Operations Command and the Night Vision 
and Electronic Sensors Directorate, thus extending the 
anticipated use of the AN/PVS-14 to fiscal year 2030.
    The Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Report 114-49) encouraged the Secretary of 
the Army to develop and implement a comprehensive night vision 
systems research, development, acquisition, reset maintenance, 
and sustainment strategy that improves readiness, identifies 
and delivers promising new or emerging technologies, and 
ensures the affordability of night vision systems by managing 
cost throughout their life cycle. The committee is troubled 
that the Army has not followed this recommendation, and is not 
taking appropriate action to provide necessary performance and 
reliability improvements for the legacy fleet of AN/PVS-14 
systems, commensurate with the threat and extended service 
life.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to request funding as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget 
request to begin a performance reset of fielded AN/PVS-14 
systems through the component upgrade of the image intensifier 
tubes or explain in writing why such an upgrade is not needed 
to meet combatant commander requirements and ensure U.S. 
service members possess night vision devices superior to their 
potential adversaries.

Night Vision Reset

    The Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114-49) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
acknowledged that night vision systems are an essential 
capability for successful military and counterterrorism 
operations. With increased proliferation around the world of 
high performance night vision technologies, U.S. forces may 
face a capability mismatch as adversaries acquire higher 
performance level technology. The committee believes it is 
crucial that the Department of Defense maintains and, where 
possible, extends its technological advantage in night vision 
systems.
    The committee is aware that the Army is working to address 
the technological opportunities, operational requirements, and 
industrial base challenges associated with current and future 
night vision systems. Therefore, the committee continues to 
encourage the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a 
comprehensive night vision systems research development, 
acquisition, reset maintenance, and sustainment strategy that 
improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new 
technologies, and ensures affordability of night vision systems 
by managing cost throughout their life cycle.

Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and biological weapons 
        facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground

    The southern end of Aberdeen Proving Ground contains the 
laboratories for the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command 
(ECBC). While many laboratories are new and state of the art, 
the ECBC contains a number of 50-year-old laboratories that are 
inactive but still must be fenced and have their ventilation 
systems functioning given the trace amounts of agents that are 
present in them. The result is a cost of several hundred 
thousand dollars each year to keep some of these laboratories 
in a warm status, which includes other activities such as 
ensuring they are structurally sound and do not leak. Because 
the cost of maintaining the laboratory each year is less than 
the 1 year tear down cost, they remain standing for a period of 
time such that the accumulated cost over the outyears would pay 
for their removal. Similar parallels exist at the Department of 
Energy with abandoned nuclear weapon production facilities. The 
committee directs the Corps of Engineers to report no later 
than February 28, 2017 on a plan to tear down these hazardous 
facilities, which ultimately will save taxpayers money over the 
long run.

Review of balance between Department of Defense developmental and 
        operational test and evaluation

    The committee notes that Congress has now re-established a 
developmental test and evaluation organization within the 
defense research and engineering enterprise. With this 
development, the committee believes it is necessary to examine 
the functions and resources between the organizations of the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test 
and Evaluation (DT&E;) and the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation. To improve test and evaluation results for the 
Department's acquisition programs in the most efficient manner, 
particularly given that DT&E; will now be reporting to the 
Director Operational Test and Evaluation as directed elsewhere 
in this act, the developmental and operational test and 
evaluation organizations must maintain a balance of resources 
and oversight activities.
    The committee notes that during the 2000s, the resources 
and influence of the developmental test and evaluation 
organization declined while operational test and evaluation 
assumed a more comprehensive role, including absorbing 
resources and functions formerly within the purview of the 
developmental test and evaluation organization. For example a 
number of programs were transferred to the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation, such as Joint Test & 
Evaluation, the Center for Countermeasures (CCM), munitions 
effectiveness, and aircraft survivability. In addition, the 
Operational Test and Evaluation organization co-opted 
developmental test and evaluation aspects of acquisition 
programs.
    When the developmental test and evaluation organization was 
almost non-existent, this enlargement of responsibilities under 
operational test and evaluation was essential. However, that 
role needs to be re-examined in light of a stronger 
developmental organization. As a result, the committee believes 
it would be useful for the Department of Defense to review the 
roles and resources of the current developmental and 
operational test and evaluation organizations to address a 
number of issues and questions.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to form a 
study panel to review the appropriate balance between 
developmental and operational test and evaluation activities 
and the resources required to accomplish related activities 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The panel will 
develop recommendations for alternative approaches and resource 
levels and such recommendations should be completed no later 
than one year after the enactment of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the panel address the 
following questions:
          (a) How can the Director, Operational Test and 
        Evaluation (DOT&E;) with duties established in section 
        139 of title 10, United States Code, and the Deputy 
        Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test 
        and Evaluation (DASD (DT&E;)) with duties established in 
        section 139b of title 10, United States Code, at the 
        Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) level approach 
        oversight within the weapons development cycle to avoid 
        overlap but be mutually supporting without sacrificing 
        the independence of either organization?
          (b) Does participation and assessments of program 
        progress during phases prior to operational test and 
        evaluation bias the independent objectivity of the 
        operational test and evaluation organization?
          (c) Are staffing and other resources between the two 
        test and evaluation oversight organizations 
        commensurate with the effort of each relative to the 
        portion of the programs that their oversight entails?
          (d) Are there programs under the purviews of the 
        Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 
        with duties established in Section 196 of Title 10, 
        United States Code, or the DASD (DT&E;) that should be 
        managed within operational test and evaluation, such as 
        the Resource Enhancement Program and Joint Mission 
        Environment Test Capability?
          (e) Are there programs under the purview of the DOT&E; 
        or the DASD (DT&E;) that should more appropriately be 
        under the purview of other Office of Secretary of 
        Defense organizations?
          (f) Overall are the DASD (DT&E;) and the DOT&E; 
        organizations effectively carrying out the missions as 
        described in title 10, United States Code, and are 
        there impediments to meeting those responsibilities. In 
        addition are they engaged in activities outside their 
        mission areas?
          (g) Are the activities of the test and evaluation 
        organizations complementary, not duplicative or 
        disruptive, to the activities of the military 
        departments?
          (h) What are the implications for the balance between 
        the two organizations now that DT&E; will be reporting 
        to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?

Silicon Carbide Technology

    The Committee supports the Army's investment to advance 
power and energy technology to meet requirements for higher 
electric power loads at forward operating bases through 
efficient generators, extend silent watch capabilities for 
ground vehicles, and improve vehicle performance. Silicon 
Carbide MOSFET based high performance power modules have been 
identified as an enabling technology that meets Army 
requirements for power distribution and management as part of 
generator and battery systems. The Army is encouraged to 
increase support for demonstration and deployment of silicon 
carbide power electronics under the Research, Development and 
Engineering Command Tank Automotive Research, Development and 
Engineering Center.

Simulation training

    The Committee supports the Department of Defense's 
continued expansion of the full range of simulation training as 
a cost-effective means by which military units can improve 
tactical decision-making skills through training in realistic 
scenarios otherwise only found in theater combat operations. 
Well-trained units ultimately save lives when deployed to 
combat situations. The Department of Defense should continue to 
ensure the most efficient and effective training programs are 
available through a combination of both government-owned and 
operated simulators, as well as simulation support from a 
dedicated commercial activity capable of providing frequent 
hardware and software updates.

Single appropriation for developmental test and evaluation and test 
        resources

    The committee notes that prior to 1999, the Department of 
Defense had a strong developmental test and evaluation 
organization with a single appropriation for development test 
and evaluation support (including test resources) with all 
related program elements included within one appropriation. The 
committee understands that in 1999, developmental test and 
evaluation was reorganized and downsized and the appropriations 
were transferred to other program elements, primarily to the 
operational test and evaluation office.
    The committee further notes though, that in 2009, the 
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 111-23) re-
established a strong developmental test and evaluation 
organization. Unfortunately, the related issue of resources was 
not addressed in the legislation and, as a result, 
developmental test and evaluation programs and projects remain 
scattered throughout defense-wide appropriations.
    To correct this oversight, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to include in the budget transmitted to 
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
Code, for each fiscal year a separate statement of estimated 
expenditures and proposed appropriation for the fiscal year for 
the activities of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Developmental Test & Evaluation (DASD (DT&E;)) and the Director, 
Test Resources Management Center (TRMC) for carrying out 
assigned duties and responsibilities. The Secretary of Defense 
shall re-establish a separate Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation appropriation for Development Test & Evaluation and 
Test Resources as existed in the Department prior to fiscal 
year 1999. The reestablished appropriation will include all 
Program Elements currently administered by the DASD (DT&E;) and 
the Director, TRMC including the Central Test and Evaluation 
Investment Program and Department of Defense Test and 
Evaluation Science and Technology. This reestablished 
development test and evaluation appropriation will be 
administered by the DASD (DT&E;) and the Director, TRMC.
    This change would consolidate the developmental test and 
evaluation-related resources in a single appropriation similar 
to what existed prior to 1999, which would allow for better 
congressional oversight and more efficient execution. This 
change would also provide Congress better visibility on 
resources being directed to developmental test and evaluation 
and test infrastructure. This change would also increase 
efficiency and minimize the possibility that resources can be 
realigned between program elements without congressional 
approval.

Study on best practices for laboratory management techniques

    In previous years, the committee has taken many steps to 
unshackle the Department of Defense laboratories from federal 
rules and regulations that the committee believed to be overly 
burdensome and to be having a deleterious effect on the 
abilities of the laboratories to carry out the critical mission 
with which they are charged. Among other things, the committee 
has granted the laboratories greater autonomy and authority to 
make their own decisions regarding personnel, workforce, 
funding allocation, and general laboratory administration and 
management.
    The committee has undertaken these efforts because it 
believes that the Department of Defense laboratories, along 
with the scientific and technical experts that they employ, are 
a unique national resource carrying out work that is vital to 
the national security interests of the United States. In 
recognition of the special status that the laboratories and 
employees occupy in terms of service to the Nation, the 
committee felt an obligation to ensure that all necessary tools 
were made available as necessary.
    To be sure, while the committee has taken many steps, many 
more remain. As an ultimate goal, the committee hopes to ensure 
that laboratories and lab employees have the desired 
flexibility to experiment and innovate in a supportive 
environment on an accelerated timescale that meets the needs of 
the defense services and of those engaging in the Nation's 
conflicts.
    As the committee has carried out its reforms in this arena, 
it has discovered that the Department has scientific 
organizations that are managed under a number of different 
governance models. For instance, the traditional service 
laboratories, such as the Army Research Lab, the Navy Research 
Lab, and the Air Force Research Lab, are all government owned 
and operated, meaning that all employees are direct federal 
employees. As a contrast, institutions like Lincoln Lab and the 
Applied Physics Lab are federally funded research and 
development centers, paid for by the government, but run by 
institutes of higher education. In addition, the committee is 
aware that laboratories of other federal agencies are managed 
under completely different models. For instance, the 
laboratories of the Department of Energy are government-owned, 
but operated by private companies, meaning that all employees 
are private sector contractors.
    While the committee appreciates that different missions and 
different objectives often require different management and 
governance, it also recognizes that with the launch of the 
Department of Defense's third offset initiative, greater 
pressure is being placed on the defense laboratories, indeed 
the entire defense research enterprise, to be more innovative 
and quicker in bringing new technologies to production and 
deployment. The committee is struck that it seems unreasonable 
to expect such increased output and efficiency from the 
laboratories without a commensurate overhaul of management and 
governance structures.
    At the same time, the committee has yet to see a 
comprehensive accounting of best practices for government 
laboratory governance. As a result, the ability of the 
committee to move forward smartly with additional reforms, 
designed to fully unleash the inherent capabilities of the lab 
in an efficient manner, is somewhat hampered. As much as the 
committee would like to undertake comprehensive defense lab 
governance reform, it remains wary of doing more harm than 
good.
    To remedy this gap in the committee's knowledge and 
expertise, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to complete a study of the various laboratory 
governance models employed at federal government laboratories, 
both defense and non-defense. This study should identify all 
different governance models used across the government, the 
benefits and drawbacks of each model, and how successful each 
governance model has been at fostering efficiency and 
innovation. The study should also compare the relative autonomy 
given to each of the different lab directors, and conclude with 
recommendations on best governance practices. The committee 
directs the Comptroller General to submit this study to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the 
enactment of this Act.

Subsurface threat detection systems

    The committee notes that the Navy has requested $45.7M in 
PE 0603123N for force protection advanced technologies, 
including funding for sensors and countermeasures for use 
against unmanned underwater threats and divers. The committee 
expects the Navy to continue and expand these efforts, 
commensurate with these growing threats.

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

    The committee recognizes the importance of more efficient 
fuel consumption and enhanced power benefits that collectively 
increase the combat capability under the improved turbine 
engine program (ITEP) for Army rotary wing aviation. For 
example, the committee understands that the ITEP will increase 
the combat range of Black Hawk and Apaches by at least 85 
percent. However, the committee also understands that 
underfunding ITEP will result in a program schedule delay that 
could defer engine fielding to Black Hawk and Apache units. 
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Army to review 
the program funding profile for the key preliminary design 
phase of this competitive program to ensure resources are 
properly allocated across the future years defense program. 
Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Army to 
examine all possible options to accelerate development and 
fielding of the engine so that the increased capabilities can 
be realized sooner.

Third offset technology--industrial base concerns

    The Committee acknowledges the critical role that the Third 
Offset strategy plays in assuring long-term national security 
but to date, has not received a clear interpretation of what 
this strategy consists of. Without a clear explanation from the 
Department of Defense, the Committee is concerned about the 
viability of the U.S. industrial base to support the Third 
Offset strategy. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit to the Committee a report on the Third 
Offset strategy, including how Third Offset programs will 
overcome capability or capacity challenges posed by U.S. 
adversaries, as well key capability shortfall areas that 3rd 
offset does not address. It will further submit its top five 
acquisition priorities, how they fit into the Third Offset 
strategy and to what extent the Department believes the U.S. 
industrial base can fill gaps in ability to support the 
strategy. The committee directs the Department submit both the 
strategy report and its acquisition findings and views to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee no later than one year after 
the enactment of this Act.

Troposcatter Systems

    The committee is concerned that warfighters lack needed 
communication capability in environments where satellite 
communications are degraded or denied. The committee is aware 
of the Army 's effort to leverage advances in troposcatter 
systems in order to close this strategic gap. Given current 
budget constraints, the committee urges the Army to assess the 
ability of off-the-shelf, non-developmental solutions to meet 
Army requirements while reducing cost and risk.

United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High Energy Laser

    The committee notes that United States Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM) has identified an unfunded requirement for 
fiscal year 2017 to accelerate the exploration of tactics, 
techniques and procedures, and concept of employment of an 
Airborne High Energy Laser (AHEL) on an AC-130 aircraft. The 
committee agrees that directed energy capabilities, potentially 
including the AHEL, may offer possible tactical and operational 
advantages over conventional capabilities for certain missions 
requiring clandestine activities and the ability to disable 
vehicles, infrastructure, weapons, and other equipment. Such 
capabilities may also offer advantages in terms of cost 
effectiveness, sustainability, and precision.
    The committee supports the experimentation proposed by 
SOCOM and understands that defense research laboratories and 
industry are currently working to advance directed energy 
systems for integration on various types of military aircraft. 
The committee directs SOCOM to fully coordinate its activities 
with the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office in order to 
avoid duplication of efforts and encourages the Department to 
pool resources from relevant offices in support of this 
unfunded requirement.

Working capital fund efficiencies

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
and other federal government organizations will continue to 
experience constrained budgets for several years in the near-
term, and that under such circumstances, federal organizations 
cannot afford to duplicate capabilities that may exist in other 
government organizations.
    The committee also notes that working capital funded 
organizations are uniquely capable of managing within their 
budgets while supporting other organizations since the 
organizations being served pay for the services received. In 
addition, the committee notes that an increased client base for 
working capital funds results in a larger base upon which to 
spread overhead cost, which in turn can reduce cost for all 
customers.
    The committee notes with concern that the leadership of 
some Department of Defense organizations may choose to reduce 
the flexibility allowed for working capital organizations to 
expand their base beyond the work for their parent 
organization. Such policies could necessitate other 
organizations to acquire duplicate capabilities.
    As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to ensure that all working capital funded facilities within the 
Department of Defense are allowed to provide services to all 
other Department of Defense organizations and all other federal 
organizations that request such services. The committee expects 
that, to the extent allowed by budget limitations, these 
services will be provided regardless of which organization 
operates the working capital funded facility and regardless of 
workforce staffing levels. The committee expects that such 
direction will be given to working capital funded facilities no 
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at 
the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this 
Act.

                 Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (a) of section 2925 of title 10, United States Code, 
by significantly reducing the contents of the Department of 
Defense's Annual Energy Management Report.
    Additionally, the committee clarifies that the intent for 
reporting of all commercial utility outages caused by threats 
and hazards should include all four categories of utility 
service: electrical, potable water, wastewater, and natural 
gas. Accordingly, the committee believes the Department should 
appropriately revise the data collection template's 
instructions to capture such disruptions and outages.

Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military installations 
        (sec. 303)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries 
responsible for energy installations and environment for the 
military services and the Defense Logistics Agency, to conduct 
an assessment of the efforts to achieve cost savings at 
military installations with high energy costs.

Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 304)

    The committee recommends a provision that recognizes the 
importance of energy management for improving resiliency and 
achieving the Department of Defense's Federal energy reduction 
goals. Therefore, to reduce energy costs, the committee directs 
the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Department 
of Energy, to develop a pilot program to investigate the 
utilization of utility data management services to perform 
utility bill aggregation, analysis, third-party payment, 
storage and distribution.
    Of the amounts to be appropriated for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy for SAG BSIT, Enterprise Information, the 
Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer funds for the 
purposes of the pilot program.

                      Linear LED lamps (sec. 305)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2-4.1.1.2 of the Department of Defense's Unified 
Facilities Criteria to allow linear light emitting diode lamps 
for facilities and installation retrofits. The committee notes 
that these fixtures may consume less energy, improve safety, 
realize life-cycle cost savings, and provide a return on 
investment.

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment


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

    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would amend chapter 1003 of title 
10, United States Code, and would revise the Army's 
deployability rating system and the manner in which the Army is 
required to track prioritization of deployable units.
    The committee notes this provision would require the 
Secretary of the Army to maintain a readiness rating system for 
units of all components of the Army that provides an accurate 
assessment of the deployability of a unit and those shortfalls 
of a unit that require additional resources.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion 
Policy and Oversight, to revise the corrosion-related guidance 
to clearly define specific roles of the corrosion control and 
prevention executives of the military departments.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
savings derived from foreign currency fluctuations to be made 
available for the repair, recapitalization, and certification 
of dry docks at Naval Shipyards.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to further 
streamline the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC).
    The committee remains very concerned that the QRRC's 
delivery to Congress lacks timeliness, remains hampered by 
parallel processes, and contains overlapping assessments which 
are then collectively hindered by unnecessarily prolonged 
approval processes within the Department of Defense.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to 
separate and alternate semi-annual assessments with semi-annual 
reports on remedial actions and recovery models in the next 
QRRC. The committee also strongly urges the Department to 
remove the senior readiness fora summaries in Annex A in order 
to avoid duplication. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Department to reduce duplication of the content currently 
provided in Annexes B and C of the QRRC, to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    The committee remains unsatisfied with the content reported 
in Annex F--Risk assessment of dependence on contractor 
support--as required by section 482(g) of title 10 United 
States Code. The committee strongly urges the Department to 
significantly improve the reporting quality in the next 
iteration of the QRRC.
    Lastly, because the content of Annex G--Cannibalization 
rates report--is unclassified, the provision would require the 
Department to provide Annex G to the congressional defense 
committees in a separate unclassified report containing the 
information collected pursuant to section 117(c)(7) of title 
10, United States Code.

Report on HH-60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program 
        (sec. 322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees that sets forth a plan to modernize, sustain 
training, and provide depot maintenance for all components of 
the HH-60 helicopter fleet.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
excess firearms to Rock Island Arsenal to be repurposed for 
military use as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
    Additionally, the provision would allow for the transfer of 
M-1 Garand rifles and caliber .22 rimfire rifles currently in 
the Navy and Marine Corps inventory at Defense Distribution 
Center, Anniston, or Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane to be 
used as awards for competitors in marksmanship competitions 
that are held by the Navy or the Marine Corps.

Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage and utility 
        uniforms (sec. 332)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of funds for the development or 
fielding of new camouflage or utility uniforms or families of 
uniforms until one year after the Secretary of Defense notifies 
the congressional defense committees.
    The committee notes that the Joint Clothing and Textiles 
Governance Board that is charged with developing policies 
related to combat uniforms has only met four times since 2010. 
The committee remains concerned that a lack of guidance has led 
to confusion amongst the services with how to ensure the best 
technology is integrated into all uniforms while maintaining 
compliance with existing Department of Defense policies. The 
committee understands that different operational environments 
will require different materials to provide protection from 
different threats.

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on 
        military installations (sec. 333)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 358 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to ensure that due 
diligence and proper assessment is given so energy projects do 
not interfere with operational training of the military 
services.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force to submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
not later than March 3, 2017, a resource ready and executable 
plan for developing and emplacing a modernized dedicated 
adversary air training enterprise to support the full spectrum 
air combat readiness of the United States Air Force.
    The committee is concerned that although the Air Force has 
not been seriously challenged by an adversary that has caused 
significant friendly losses in air warfare for over four 
decades, technological advances, increased defense spending, 
and more aggressive military posturing by contemporary 
potential adversaries bring that concern back to the forefront. 
The Air Force's experience over Southeast Asia during the 
Vietnam conflict catalyzed a wholesale change in strategy, 
doctrine, and training, but not before suffering significant 
losses at the hands of an enemy initially perceived as 
substantially less capable.
    The committee recalls that in response to this undesirable 
circumstance, the Air Force emplaced a robust training regimen 
of advanced dissimilar air combat training, large force 
employment exercises such as RED FLAG and COPE THUNDER, and 
perhaps most importantly, an institutional commitment to 
fielding a dedicated air adversary training capability in the 
form of a full fighter wing equivalent of 72 aircraft in 
aggressor adversary air training units. This training 
capability remained in place from the early 1970s until the end 
of the 1980s, when defense budget pressures drove a 92 percent 
reduction in dedicated adversary air training assets from their 
peak level.
    The committee believes these dedicated adversary air 
training assets undoubtedly contributed to the eventual defeat 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and also played a 
significant part in training Air Force units who subsequently 
dominated Saddam Hussein's air force in the first Gulf War. 
However, 25 years of continuous combat operations, divestment 
of over 60 percent of combat aircraft squadrons, and constantly 
declining defense budgets have combined with resurgent and 
emergent nation-state threats to necessitate a reexamination of 
how the Air Force will maximize training and readiness as 
necessary pillars of its fifth generation-enabled force into 
the future.

Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness of the Air 
        Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Air Force to commission an independent review 
and assessment of the assumptions underlying the Air Force's 
annual continuation training requirements, and the efficacy of 
the overall Ready Aircrew Program in the management of Air 
Force's aircrew training requirements. The provision would also 
direct the Comptroller General of the United States to assess 
the matters contained in the Secretary's report on the 
independent review and assessment.
    The Air Force has raised concerns regarding training 
shortfalls for both fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft 
aircrews against the annual continuation training requirements 
established in their Ready Aircrew Program (RAP). RAP defines 
the required individual training events, proficiency levels, 
and the appropriate mix and quantities of live training sorties 
and simulator missions for combat air forces. A number of 
factors have contributed to existing training shortfalls, 
including operations tempo, maintenance personnel levels, aging 
aircraft, limited and obsolete range infrastructure, and 
nonavailability of training support assets, such as dedicated 
adversary air training aircraft, among other factors. 
Additionally, the Air Force's reduced number of combat 
squadrons, and the reduced numbers of primary assigned aircraft 
to most of the remaining squadrons, combine to provide fewer 
cockpit positions to absorb and train new pilots to experienced 
proficiency levels. Finally, ongoing combat operations, the 
future fielding of large numbers of F-35As, and a potential A-
10 fleet divestment further exacerbate these training 
challenges.
    The committee is also concerned with assumptions underlying 
the annual training requirements that have not been adjusted in 
recent years to ensure that aircrews are training for the full 
range of core Air Force missions. For example, the Air Force 
has historically established annual training requirements for 
experienced or inexperienced aircrews based on whether a combat 
aircrew has achieved 500 flying hours in a primary aircraft. 
However, some new aircrew personnel can quickly meet the 
experienced flying hour level through operational deployments, 
even though the type of deployed flying operations may not 
represent the required experience across the full range of core 
missions.

Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings with accessible 
        cords in military housing units in which children reside (sec. 
        336)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to remove and replace window coverings 
with accessible cords from military housing units in which 
children under the age of 9 reside and require housing 
contractors to phase out window coverings with accessible 
cords.

Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to require all 
new contracts involving tactical explosive detection dogs 
(TEDD) to include a provision that would transfer the TEDD to 
the 341st Training Squadron after the end of their useful 
service life and reclassify them as military animals to follow 
the adoption procedures set forth by section 2583.

STARBASE Program (sec. 338)

    The committee recommends a provision that would continue 
funding for the STARBASE Program by up to $25.0 million for SAG 
4GT3 Civil Military Programs in Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2017. The committee believes the 
STARBASE Program is a highly effective program that improves 
the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten through 
12th grades in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics.

Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers of vehicles 
        of online transportation network companies (sec. 339)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretary of defense to establish policies, terms, and 
conditions under which online transportation networks and their 
drivers shall be permitted access to military installations to 
serve base personnel.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide not more than $5.0 million 
for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of exhibits, 
facilities, historical displays, and programs at military 
service memorials and museums that highlight the role of women 
in the military.
    The committee notes that a funding offset of $5.0 million 
is derived from the Army's plan to accelerate the opening of 
another museum from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million to SAG 435 Other Service Support within the Operations 
and Maintenance, Army budget request.

                              Budget Items


Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness unfunded 
        priorities increases

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $791.5 million was for SAG 
111 Maneuver Units, $1.3 billion was for SAG 116 Aviation 
Assets, $1.0 billion was for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot 
Maintenance, $336.3 million was for SAG 211 Strategic Mobility, 
$902.8 million was for SAG 322 Flight Training, and $778.7 
million was for SAG 423 Logistics Support Activities.
    The budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation 
and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $491.7 million 
was for SAG 113 Echelons Above Brigade and $347.4 million was 
for SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support. The budget 
request also included $6.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $708.2 
million was for SAG 111 Maneuver Units, $37.1 million was for 
SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support, and $219.9 million 
for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
    The committee notes that, within the Army's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Staff of the Army has identified 
specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help 
accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these 
recommended increases will help restore the Army Prepositioned 
Stock Sustainment (APS) program in support of the European 
Reassurance Initiative and increase throughput for depot work. 
Additionally, this increase will help defray lodging costs for 
enlisted soldiers who sometimes must travel hundreds of miles 
for reserve duty. Lastly, the Chief of Staff of the Army 
testified before the committee that home station training for 
the Army National Guard to prepare for additional Combat 
Training Center rotations was one of his top unfunded readiness 
priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases: $50.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver Units; $68.0 
million was for SAG 116 Aviation Assets; $19.4 million for SAG 
123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance; $25.0 million for SAG 211 
Strategic Mobility for APS; $36.6 million for SAG 322 Flight 
Training; and $4.0 million for SAG 423 Logistics Support 
Activities in OMA; $46.0 million for SAG 113 Echelons Above 
Brigade for Lodging in Kind and Home Station Training and $0.3 
million for Force Readiness Operations Support for range 
improvements in OMAR; and $70.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver 
Units for Home Station Training; $2.4 million for SAG 121 Land 
Forces Operations Support; and $54.6 million for SAG 123 Land 
Forces Depot Maintenance in OMARNG.

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization increases

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $2.2 billion was for SAG 132 
Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. The 
budget request also included $2.7 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $214.9 million was 
for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization. The budget request also included $6.8 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of 
which $676.4 million was for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, 
Restoration & Modernization.
    The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.6 billion was for SAG BSM1 
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. The budget request 
also included $927.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy 
Reserve (OMNR), of which $27.5 million was for SAG BSMR 
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization.
    The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $632.6 million was 
for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration, & Modernization. The budget 
request also included $270.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $25.4 
million was for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration and 
Modernization.
    The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for 
SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 
The budget request also included $3.1 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve(OMAFR), of which $113.4 million 
was for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization. The budget request also included $6.7 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which 
$245.8 million was for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, 
Restoration & Modernization.
    The committee notes that throughout all unfunded 
requirement lists provided by the individual services, 
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) 
remained a shortfall for every service. The committee believes 
FSRM funding is crucial to rebuilding and maintaining 
readiness.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases: $354.4 million in OMA for SAG 132 Facilities, 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $21.5 million in OMAR 
for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization; $32.1 million in OMARNG for SAG 132 Facilities, 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $160.9 million in OMN 
for SAG BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization; $5.8 
million in OMNR for SAG BSMR Sustainment, Restoration and 
Modernization; $39.3 million in OMMC for SAG BSM1 Sustain, 
Restoration, & Modernization; $5.5 million in OMMCR for SAG 
BSM1 Sustain, Restoration and Modernization; $157.7 million in 
OMAF for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization; $11.7 million in OMAFR for SAG 011R Facilities 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $14.0 million in 
OMANG for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization.

Army advertising reduction

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $550.6 million was for SAG 
331 Recruiting and Advertising.
    The committee understands that within the Recruiting and 
Advertising request was an increase of $50.8 million, or 27 
percent of the budget request, to fund additional marketing and 
advertising efforts. The committee also understands that the 
National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended that 
Congress authorize, and that the Secretary of the Army direct 
the consolidation of marketing functions under the authority of 
the Army Marketing Research Group to ensure unity of effort 
across all three Army components: Regular Army, Army Reserve 
and Army National Guard. The committee believes the budget 
request is not in line with that recommendation and believes 
these funds can be better aligned for other readiness 
priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 
million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising.

Army museum reduction

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion million was for 
SAG 435 Other Service Support.
    The committee understands that within the Other Service 
Support request was an increase of $29.5 million to accelerate 
the opening date for the National Museum of the U.S. Army from 
fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. The committee notes that 
the Army has consistently stated that readiness is the 
service's number one priority. The committee agrees with that 
statement and believes these funds should be realigned to 
support higher priority readiness requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.5 
million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support.

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $441.1 million was for SAG 
138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support.
    The committee notes that United States Southern Command 
(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance as an unfunded priority.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 
$6.7 million for SAG 138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission 
Support for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance.

Printing reductions to active service components and defense-wide

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.5 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW).
    The committee notes that readiness is a top priority of the 
services and the Department of Defense. The committee notes the 
printing budget for active service components as follows: (1) 
Army $228.8 million, (2) Navy $48.6 million, (3) Marine Corps 
$95.5 million, (4) Air Force $59.6 million, and (5) defense-
wide $9.1 million. The committee believes that the printing 
budget for the active service components is excessive and 
portions should be realigned to fund unfunded requirements as 
requested by the Service Chiefs.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed 
reduction to the following: $34.3 million to OMA, $7.3 million 
to OMN, $14.3 million to OMMC, $8.9 million to OMAF, and $1.4 
million to OMDW.

Distributed Common Ground System-Army

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $126.9 million was for the 
Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS-A).
    The committee is aware that the DCGS is a multi-service 
program that is intended to provide a family of fixed and 
deployable multi-source ground processing systems that support 
a range of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Army 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
    The committee notes that DCGS-A is operationally suitable 
and effective when operating from fixed sites and providing 
direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, 
the committee also notes that DCGS-A is not suitable or 
effective in providing a reliable capability to tactical forces 
operating in the field. Army Brigade Combat Teams and 
battalions are required to improvise to overcome unreliable 
hardware and complex software. Operator knowledge and 
proficiency is low because of this complexity and unit 
readiness is negatively impacted.
    The committee notes that since 2007 total program cost of 
DCGS-A has been in excess of $3.0 billion. Costs to complete 
the program are estimated to be in excess of an additional $7.0 
billion.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed 
decrease in OMA of $63.0 million for DCGS-A.

Foreign currency fluctuations

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2016, the Department 
does not plan to transfer in any prior year unobligated 
balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2016. GAO 
analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 
gain in fiscal year 2017 due to favorable foreign exchange 
rates.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $59.2 
million to OMA, $14.6 million to OMN, $2.9 million to OMMC, 
$33.5 million to OMAF, and $10.6 million to OMDW for FCF.

Bulk fuel savings

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee understands that as of March 2015, the 
Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for 
fiscal year 2017.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
decreases: $123.3 million to OMA, $238.4 million to OMN, $24.7 
million for OMMC, $394.6 million to OMAF, and $41.1 million to 
OMDW for bulk fuel savings.

Army National Guard psychological health increase

    The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 
million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
    The committee understands that within this request was $7.4 
million for 69 Director of Psychological Health (DPH) positions 
within the Army National Guard. This level of funding is 
insufficient to cover the full validated requirement of 157 DPH 
positions. The committee notes that the Army National Guard has 
one of the highest rates of suicides in the military and that 
over 60 percent of those suicides were soldiers who never 
deployed and are not eligible for behavioral healthcare 
provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. For these 
members of the Army National Guard, the DPH can administer on-
site screening, counseling and referral to community resources 
when needed.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMARNG 
of $9.5 million to SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

Army National Guard underexecution reduction

    The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 
million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
    Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, 
the committee understands this subactivity group has 
historically underexecuted its appropriated funding.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMARNG 
of $5.0 million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases

    The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.0 billion was for SAG 1A5A 
Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $564.7 million was for SAG 1A9A 
Aviation Logistics, and $0.0 million was for SAG 4B2E 
Environmental Programs.
    The committee notes that, within the Navy's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Naval Operations has identified 
specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help 
accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these 
recommended increases will increase aviation depot maintenance 
and E-6B and F-35 sustainment capabilities. The committee 
further notes that these recommended increased will help 
crucial environmental restoration.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases in OMN: $34.0 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot 
Maintenance, $16.0 million for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics, and 
$18.0 million for SAG 4B2E Environmental Programs.

Navy enterprise information reduction

    The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $790.7 million was for SAG 
BSIT Enterprise Information.
    Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, 
the committee understands this subactivity group has 
historically underexecuted its appropriated funding.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $54.3 
million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information due to low execution 
in prior years.

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase in security 
        programs

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 
Security Programs.
    The committee notes that United States Southern Command 
(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance as an unfunded priority.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 
$6.0 million for SAG 411 Security Programs for SOUTHCOM 
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction

    The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $285.9 million was for SAG 
4A5M Other Personnel Support.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$10.0 million for an increase to the Naval History and Heritage 
Command. The committee believes these funds can be better 
aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million to OMN for SAG 4A5M Other Personnel Support.

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases

    The budget request included $5.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) of which $674.6 million was 
for SAG 1A1A Operational Forces, $947.4 million was for SAG 
1A2A Field Logistics, $206.7 million was for SAG 1A3A Depot 
Maintenance, $632.6 million was for SAG BSM1 Sustain, 
Restoration & Modernization. The budget request also included 
$39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of 
which $564.7 million was for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics.
    The committee notes that, within the Marine Corps' unfunded 
priorities list, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has 
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that 
could help accelerate readiness recovery. Specifically, the 
committee understands the Marine Corps has identified exercise 
program shortfalls, aviation readiness gaps in depot 
maintenance, enterprise network defense, explosive ordnance 
disposal mission equipment needs, rifle optics modernization, 
nano-UAS capabilities, and shortfalls in facilities demolition.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases to OMMC: $63.7 million for SAG 1A1A Operational 
Forces, $28.1 million for SAG 1A2A Field Logistics, $7.8 
million for SAG 1A3A Depot Maintenance, and $39.2 million for 
BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Maintenance. Additionally, 
the committee recommends an increase to OMN for $5.4 million 
for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics.

Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard readiness unfunded 
        priorities increases

    The budget request included $37.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for 
SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $7.1 billion was for SAG 
011M Depot Maintenance and $1.5 billion was for SAG 021M Depot 
Maintenance. The budget request included $3.1 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which 
230 million was for SAG 011G Mission Support Operations. The 
budget request also included $6.7 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) of which $7.0 billion 
was for SAG 011M Depot Maintenance.
    The committee notes that, within the Air Force's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has 
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that 
could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes 
that this recommended increase will improve shortfalls of the 
HC/HH-60 C4I platform. The committee further notes that this 
recommended increase will improve Air National Guard depot 
maintenance efforts.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8 
million for SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $150.4 million 
for SAG 011M Depot Maintenance, and $66.4 million for SAG 021M 
Depot Maintenance in OMAF and $29.0 million for SAG 011G 
Mission Support Operations in OMAFR. The committee also 
recommends an increase in OMANG of $43.2 to SAG 011M Depot 
Maintenance.

Air Force advertising reduction

    The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $104.7 million was for 
SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising.
    The committee understands that within the Recruiting and 
Advertising request was an increase of $29.2 million to fund 
additional marketing and advertising efforts. The committees 
notes this request would more than double the Air Force's 
advertising budget. The committee believes these funds can be 
better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.0 
million in OMAF to SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising.

Special Operations Command civilian compensation

    The budget request included $5.4 billion in Operations and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM), of which $751.8 million is for civilian 
compensation. The committee notes that the budget request for 
SOCOM civilian compensation for fiscal year 2017 is $72.7 
million more than what was enacted for fiscal year 2016, which 
represents an approximately 10 percent increase. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $45.3 million to be applied to higher 
priority requirements.

Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office

    The budget request included $358.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense Logistics Agency 
(DLA), of which $61.4 million was for the Price Comparability 
program.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $5.8 million in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense 
Logistics Agency (DLA) Price Comparability program which would 
return the program to its fiscal year 2015 budget level.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner engagement programs

    The budget request included $496.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency, of which $270.2 million is for the Global 
Train and Equip Program, $58.6 million for the Regional 
Centers, $21.8 million is for the Wales Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace, $26.8 million for the Combating 
Terrorism Fellowship Program, $25.6 million for the Defense 
Institution Reform Initiative, $9.2 million for the Ministry of 
Defense Advisors program, $2.6 million for the Defense 
Institute of International Legal Studies. The committee 
recommends a transfer of $414.8 million to the Security 
Cooperation Enhancement Fund in Title 14 of this Act.

Funding for impact aid

    The budget request included $2.7 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTJ) for the operations of the 
Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount authorized 
to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from 
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of 
this committee report.

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

Office of Economic Adjustment reduction

    The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide of which $155.3 million was for SAG 
4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$19.2 million for non-defense funding related to a public 
health lab. The committee notes there is an additional $13.0 
million in prior year funding that has not yet been obligated 
for this project. The committee notes that with over 1.3 
million people visiting Guam from countries with ``emerging 
infections,'' the addition of 5,000 marines would have a 
limited impact. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
administration to seek funding for any needed civilian lab from 
appropriate civilian sources.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.2 
million to SAG 4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment and 
recommends that the Department seek to reprogram the prior year 
funds to higher priority requirements.

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

    The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.4 billion was for 
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    The committee understands that $4.0 million was to be used 
for base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support. 
The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.

Department of Defense rewards program reduction

    The budget request included $1.4 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $6.6 million was for 
the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD 
rewards program has been hampered by historical under-
execution.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD rewards program.

Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit

    The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.5 billion was for 
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee 
recommends an increase of $30.0 million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN 
Office of the Secretary of Defense for a delivery unit for the 
Secretary of Defense to bring in professionals with deep 
experience in management consulting, organization 
transformation, and data analytics to assist with key reforms 
and business transformation priorities. The provision 
underlying this change in funding levels is discussed in 
greater detail in title IX of this committee report.

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service

    The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance.
    The committee recommends an undistributed increase of $15.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance that would establish the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 
as an independent commission, which shall remain available 
until expended. Additional information on this recommended 
increase can be found in Title X, Subtitle H.

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

    The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in Operations and Maintenance to authorize a waiver of 
temporary duty travel per diem rates up to the full rate in 
long-term temporary duty travel activity. The provision 
underlying this change in funding levels is discussed in 
greater detail in title XI of this committee report.

Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational Concept

    The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operations 
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, of which $85.7 million was for 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (SAG 3PL1). The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million to SAG 3PL1 for the modeling of an 
alternative Army design and operational concept. Additional 
funding would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish an 
office to study and evaluate the reconnaissance strike group 
concept as recommended by the National Commission on the Future 
of the Army.

                       Items of Special Interest


Additive manufacturing recommendations

    The committee recognizes the advances being made by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in the rapidly emerging additive 
manufacturing (AM), or 3-D printing environment. The committee 
strongly encourages DOD to more aggressively pursue AM 
capabilities that are innovative, adaptive, improve readiness, 
and enables the military services to be more self-sustainable, 
while developing the ability to qualify and certify AM produced 
items. The committee commends the Navy, in particular, for its 
leadership in this area regarding its AM roadmap and 
recognizing the potential AM could improve DOD capabilities in 
the areas of on-demand warfighting systems, agile supply 
chains, expeditionary sustainment, personalized medical care, 
and energetics. For example, the committee commends the Navy 
for its testing and flight critical part demonstration of a V-
22 nacelle link and fitting.
    However, it is clear that industry remains at the 
forefront, leading the way in AM. While there are multiple 
nascent efforts in AM, there are unique Navy and Marine Corps 
challenges such as afloat stabilization, fire hazards, and 
space constraints that must be addressed to fully realize the 
benefits of AM for widespread implementation. The committee is 
aware of the many demonstration and prototyping efforts, but it 
is still unclear when DOD will implement and more fully benefit 
from these advances in AM.
    The committee understands that DOD may already have some 
appropriate authorities to enter into public-private 
partnerships, however, the committee strongly encourages faster 
AM adoption and learning across DOD, as well as collaboration 
and opportunities to seek efficiencies as each of the military 
services make investments in AM. Further, the Government 
Accountability Office noted in its 2015 report on AM that DOD 
needs to systematically track and disseminate the results of AM 
efforts across DOD. As a result, DOD may not have the 
information it needs to leverage resources and lessons learned 
from AM efforts and thereby facilitate the adoption of the 
technology across DOD.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than February 1, 2017. The report should include, but not 
be limited to: (1) details from each of the military services 
regarding their current AM efforts to include fiscal years 2016 
and 2017 planned and completed demonstrations and prototyping 
efforts; (2) details regarding joint-development projects and 
efficiencies achieved through intra-service collaboration; (3) 
details regarding AM qualification and certification efforts 
for materials, processes and components; (4) a recommendation 
regarding the expanded use of Working Capital Funded pilot 
programs, potential changes to public-private partnerships 
within the defense industrial base, or any other potential 
changes in law that could enable DOD to better demonstrate and 
execute AM end use component fabrication.

Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base

    The committee remains concerned by reports that 
servicemembers have been exposed to unacceptable living 
conditions, including black mold, in latrines and living 
quarters at al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
    The committee continues to believe that all servicemembers 
deserve safe and healthy living conditions.
    The committee understands that the Air Force is 
implementing a four-point plan to maintain, repair, renovate, 
and replace substandard facilities at al Udeid Air Base. The 
committee expects the Air Force to keep the committee updated 
on its efforts at al Udeid Air Base and to address any 
remaining problematic living conditions across United States 
Central Command, including at al Udeid, without delay.

Advertising activities among the military service components

    The committee understands that as part of its efforts to 
meet yearly military recruitment goals, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) requested almost $575.0 million for fiscal year 
2017. The committee notes that preliminary findings from the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicate that DOD has 
taken steps to coordinate some advertising activities among the 
military service components, but it has not developed a formal 
process for coordination and addressing inefficiencies to 
ensure information sharing among the services. The GAO found 
examples of possible unnecessary duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation that may result from the absence of coordination. 
For example, the Air Force has three advertising programs that 
contract with three advertising agencies, but officials could 
not provide a rationale for requiring separate programs.
    The committee also notes that the GAO found the military 
service components vary in their ability to determine whether 
their activities are generating leads for potential recruits. 
For example, while the Marine Corps has developed a framework 
to assess the effectiveness of its advertising including leads 
generated from advertising activities at the local level, Army 
officials stated they do not have reliable data to evaluate 
whether locally executed advertising activities are generating 
leads, and the Army National Guard does not require state units 
to report on the performance of their advertising activities. 
The committee concurs with the GAO finding that without fully 
measuring advertising performance, especially at the local 
levels, DOD may be unable to ensure advertising dollars are 
used efficiently and effectively to help meet recruiting goals.
    Additionally, the committee remains concerned that some 
military service components are paying sport teams to provide 
recognition ceremonies for service members--a practice later 
deemed unacceptable by DOD--suggest that the absence of DOD 
oversight may have contributed to some activities of 
questionable appropriateness. Without a Department-wide policy 
that clearly defines its oversight role, DOD lacks reasonable 
assurance that advertising is carried out in an effective and 
appropriate manner.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with officials from the military 
service components and the Joint Advertising Market Research 
Studies office, to develop a formal process for coordination on 
crosscutting issues to facilitate more effective use of 
advertising resources. As part of this process, the Secretary 
shall review existing advertising programs to identify 
opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation and obtain potential efficiencies. The Secretary 
shall also clearly define DOD's role in overseeing the 
advertising activities of military service components, clarify 
issues related to sports related advertising and marketing, and 
outline procedures that should guide the components' 
advertising activities for other types of advertising, such as 
concerts or other event advertising and digital advertising.
    Additionally, the committee directs the secretaries of the 
military departments to review and ensure that each military 
service component fully measures advertising performance. This 
review shall include both the identification of measurable 
goals in advertising plans and contracts, and ensure that the 
military service components have access to the necessary 
performance data to determine the effectiveness of their 
advertising for lead generation activities.
    The above mentioned formal process and review should be 
prepared in a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 
2017.

Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program

    The committee urges the Army to use the Army Foundry 
Military Intelligence Training Program for maximum training 
effect. Army Regulation 350-32 states that ``Foundry enables 
Army intelligence personnel to sustain intelligence skills 
pertinent to their unit's mission, to improve their individual 
and collective technical and analytical skills, and to receive 
required accreditation and certification training to 
successfully execute intelligence missions in support of the 
unit's mission.'' The appropriated funds for this account are 
limited and intended to support this vital training of 
soldiers.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review 
and certify to Congress that Foundry Military Intelligence 
Training Program funds are being used for the purposes outlined 
in Army Regulation 350-32. The secretary's report is to be sent 
to the committee within 180 days of the enactment of this bill.

Army requirements for footwear technology

    The committee understands that the Army procures a wide 
range of footwear products that incorporate expanded 
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane technology. The 
committee further understands that Army product description 
documents, currently used in footwear Requests For Proposals 
seek to achieve a small set of capabilities that are 
subsequently addressed with 35-year-old ePTFE technology.
    The committee is aware that ePTFE technology, other new 
membrane technologies, and associated laminates have advanced 
significantly over the years and can address current Army 
requirements and future Army needs, while achieving enhanced 
and diverse sets of capabilities, comfort, and performance.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 
December 15, 2016. This report shall provide a detailed review 
to include evaluation and testing outcomes, of new ePTFE 
membrane, laminates, and other membrane technologies that can 
meet current requirements and address a wider set of current 
and future Army footwear capability needs and objectives. In 
addition, this report shall also suggest potential revisions to 
current requirements and associated footwear product 
descriptions that could expand access to these new technology 
advancements.

Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements

    The committee notes that the Navy and Marine Corps will 
continue to confront an increasingly complex security 
environment that will demand a wide range of missions, such as 
defeating terrorist organizations in the Middle East and 
responding to worldwide humanitarian crises. The committee 
understands that to meet these evolving challenges, the 
services have developed plans to synchronize training and 
deployment schedules to improve readiness and are reemphasizing 
training for core skills that degraded during a decade of 
counterinsurgency operations.
    The committee is concerned, however, that factors such as 
equipment availability due to maintenance delays and access to 
training ranges can affect the services' ability to conduct 
training for their core capability areas. The committee is 
further concerned that the military services continue to face 
an environment of uncertain and constrained budgetary resources 
for the foreseeable future.
    The committee notes, for example, in fiscal year 2013, the 
Department of Defense's operation and maintenance accounts, 
specifically those which fund the military services' training 
programs, were reduced by approximately $20.0 billion under the 
spending caps agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Public Law 112-25). Due to these reductions, the services 
curtailed some training or reduced the number of larger 
training exercises.
    The committee is aware that some targeted investments have 
been made since fiscal year 2013 to improve training readiness, 
but remains concerned about the Navy and Marine Corps' ability 
to balance training investments with available resources. As a 
result, the committee believes the services will need to 
fundamentally re-examine the requirements for training their 
forces and explore whether they can achieve additional 
efficiencies or cost savings in their training approaches, such 
as by increasing reliance on virtual or simulator technologies 
to meet some training tasks.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the Navy 
and Marine Corps have: (1) processes that establish 
requirements and resource needs to train forces for core 
capability areas; (2) conducted training for core capability 
areas and identified any factors that limit this; and (3) 
integrated the use of virtual training to prepare forces for 
the full range of military operations.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to brief the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services not later than February 15, 2017, on preliminary 
findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation with a final 
report to be completed by April 1, 2017.

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

    The committee notes that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
provides the military services with a full spectrum of 
logistics services, including the storage and distribution of 
consumable items, such as spare parts, fuel, and construction 
material, across the world. Additionally, DLA aims to position 
inventory to meet customer needs in a timely manner through its 
network of distribution warehouses while ensuring that the 
efficiency of its transportation network, which is also 
referred to as supply alignment.
    The committee also notes that the U.S. Transportation 
Command (TRANSCOM) provides air, land, and sea transportation 
for DOD and is the manager of the DOD Transportation System, 
which relies on military and commercial resources to support 
DOD's transportation needs. In particular, TRANSCOM manages the 
Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative program, which 
is focused on improving the efficiency of transportation and 
distribution of freight through a commercial partnership with a 
world-class logistics provider.
    The committee believes that while DLA and TRANSCOM have 
different missions in support of the warfighter, there may be 
efficiencies that could be created reorganizing or 
consolidating the two agencies. Additionally, the committee is 
concerned that some of the functions that currently reside with 
either organization may be better suited for the service-level 
functions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to direct an assessment of the Defense Logistics Agency and the 
United States Transportation Command conducted by an 
independent, non-governmental entity that has recognized 
credentials and expertise in business operations and military 
affairs appropriate for this assessment. The assessment should 
include but not be limited to: (1) DLA's use of TRANSCOM's 
Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative program; (2) 
DLA's efforts to improve supply alignment and TRANSCOM's role 
in DLA's efforts; (3) DLA's and TRANSCOM's efforts to identify 
and implement transportation and distribution efficiencies; (4) 
the role of the individual services in the identified functions 
of DLA and TRANSCOM and whether there would be any efficiencies 
gained by moving any functions from DLA and TRANSCOM to the 
services; (5) identification of senior flag officer positions 
no longer required at DLA and TRANSCOM due to consolidation and 
delegation of functions; (6) recommendation regarding future 
need for TRANSCOM to remain a combatant command due to 
consolidation and delegation of functions; and (7) any other 
recommendations on ways that a reorganization, or consolidation 
of these entities could improve efficiencies including the 
shifting of any functions out of either organization back to 
the military services.
    The committee further directs that a briefing on 
preliminary findings be given to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 
later than December 15, 2016, with the final report to be 
delivered in conjunction with the annual budget submission for 
fiscal year 2018.

Battery standardization plan

    The committee notes that in 2014, the Army conducted a 
study that determined the Army communications-electronics (CE) 
battery list had over 200 batteries on it and estimated the net 
gain would average five new batteries each year. The committee 
is aware that the Army is developing a formal requirement for 
battery modernization and interface standardization that seeks 
to standardize soldier-worn CE batteries down to six battery 
components. The committee understands this would be the 
foundation of an Army standard family of batteries.
    The committee remains supportive of the efforts of the Army 
and the other military services to improve soldier-worn CE 
batteries and increase combat capability. However, the 
committee is concerned that soldier-worn technology 
modernization should also maximize inventory efficiencies 
reducing logistical inefficiencies as CE and soldier-worn 
batteries continue to proliferate. The committee also believes 
this is an issue across all of the military services.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a plan to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 31, 2017 on: (1) How the Department of Defense 
(DOD) will develop formal requirements for battery 
modernization and interface standardization that seek to 
minimize the inventory of batteries and battery components; (2) 
Leveraging commercial innovation and products; (3) Using the 
products of research and development efforts in DOD, the 
Department of Energy, and the commercial sector; and (4) 
Working with DOD research and development programs to support 
efforts of standardization.

Civil Air Patrol (CAP)

    The Committee notes the Air Force's fiscal year 2017 budget 
request does not fully fund the CAP's fiscal year 2017 
requirement for $30.24 million in Operations and Maintenance, 
only funding at 85 percent of the requirement. The committee is 
concerned this lack of funding will greatly degrade CAP's 
ability to conduct state and local emergency response and 
counter-drug missions. Additionally, reduced funding may also 
adversely impact thousands of community youth programs and 
eliminate crucial aircraft and national communications 
upgrades.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, Air 
Education and Training Command to submit a report and provide a 
briefing to this committee, no later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, to present historical funding trends for 
the CAP, and assess the CAP's current mission shortfalls due to 
funding gaps.

Clarification of the Department of Defense's authority to perform 
        environmental response actions on other agency's lands in the 
        case of aircraft crashes

    The Committee notes that Section 2691 of title 10, United 
States Code, currently allows a military department to restore 
the lands of another federal agency damaged by an aircraft 
crash, when there is a pre-existing land use agreement with the 
other agency. Additionally, even absent such agreement, the 
1986 law creating the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP), 10 U.S.C. 2700 et. seq., authorizes the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to perform environmental response actions at 
property under the jurisdiction of another federal agency if 
such property is contaminated by the crash of a DOD aircraft.

Clarification on the importance of operation and maintenance savings

    The committee recognizes that, in addition to energy 
savings, the military services should consider funding sources 
for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) to include 
energy and project-related operation and maintenance (O&M;) 
savings, which are both equally permitted under the ESPC 
statute. Therefore, O&M; savings should not be limited by the 
administration or an agency, and should be utilized to improve 
resiliency and achieve Federal energy reduction goals.

Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness model

    The committee notes that the Army is redesigning its 
process for generating forces with a goal of having units that 
are able to sustain a desired level of readiness over longer 
periods of time when not deployed on a given mission, called 
the sustainable readiness model (SRM). The committee 
understands that the SRM will rotate forces through a cycle of 
deployments over time, just as the Army did under the previous 
force generation concept, the Army force generation process 
(ARFORGEN). However, unlike ARFORGEN, the committee understands 
that SRM will have a tiered aspect that will ensure that some 
capabilities and unit types will be resourced to a higher 
readiness level than others. The committee notes that the 
Army's objective is to have 66 percent of the active component 
force in a Category 1 or 2 ready status at any moment in time 
to rapidly respond to a major contingency, however, the Army 
has not yet determined exact readiness goals for the Army 
National Guard and Army Reserve.
    The Chief of Staff of the Army has directed that the SRM be 
implemented by fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned 
that implementing SRM will require fundamental shifts in how 
the Army organizes, trains, equips, and manages the force. 
Among other things, the Army will need to ensure that a unit's 
collective training events, command changes, and personnel 
rotations are well synchronized, and that units returning from 
deployment do not suffer significant and abrupt personnel 
transfers that prevent them from redeploying on short notice to 
meet unforeseen demands. Over the next 12 months, the Army also 
will need to establish and codify the roles, responsibilities, 
and processes for coordinating these force management actions 
across the total Army, and for making the resource allocation 
decisions needed to implement SRM as the Army intends.
    To inform committee oversight of the Army's plan to 
fundamentally restructure its force generation process, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to conduct a comprehensive review of the Army's SRM force 
generation concept. The assessment that supports this review 
should compare and contrast SRM with ARFORGEN, including 
similarities and differences in the goals, objectives, resource 
requirements, and supporting force management processes. 
Additionally, the review shall provide the Comptroller 
General's assessment on the Army's goals, plans, and progress 
for implementing sustainable readiness, including: (1) The 
Army's governance of the transition to and implementation of 
the SRM concept; (2) the readiness goals and resources required 
to sustain readiness; (3) potential changes to the Army's 
processes for manning, equipping, and training forces in order 
to support Sustainable Readiness; and (4) any other aspects of 
the sustainable readiness concept the Comptroller General deems 
significant.
    The committee directs that the Comptroller General should 
provide a briefing of preliminary findings of the review to 
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2017, followed 
by one or more reports no later than April 1, 2017.

Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on military 
        installations

    Defense operations at military bases often require the use 
of hazardous materials, including solvents and corrosives; 
fuels, paint strippers and thinners; metals such as lead, 
cadmium, and chromium; and unique military substances such as 
nerve agents and unexploded ordinance, the release of which has 
resulted in environmental contamination. One of the primary 
purposes of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP) is to help protect the life, health, and safety of 
military service members and their families by among other 
things, the ongoing process of detecting the discharge of 
environmental contaminants when they occur and the associated 
environmental remediation as needed. It is especially important 
to protect installation drinking water systems and supplies 
from contamination.
    A class of unregulated drinking water contaminants exists 
that either lack human health standards or have an evolving 
science and regulatory status, which raises questions about how 
this class of contaminants is tested for and managed on 
military installations, including whether the military services 
are being consistent in their approaches to this. The use and 
releases of these emerging contaminants raises concerns about 
the ability of the military services to ensure a safe and 
healthful work environment on or near installations. Such 
contaminants have been tested for and found from time to time 
on some installations. For example, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has been testing for RDX, a white crystalline solid used 
in explosives and demolition blocks. Moreover, DOD has detected 
perchlorate in groundwater and drinking water samples taken at 
an installation whose missions included launching rockets. Once 
a release has been confirmed, environmental remediation 
activities may be needed to respond to the release, offer a 
structure for cleanup, and protect public health.
    A key concern of the committee is the need to ensure that 
DOD maintains installation mission capability and a safe and 
healthful environment on military installations. For this 
reason, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a review of DOD's program to 
effectively manage emerging contaminants in sources of drinking 
water to protect readiness, people, and the environment. The 
Comptroller General is further directed to provide a report by 
April 10, 2017 or a briefing by that date with a final report 
as soon as practicable thereafter to the congressional defense 
committees. At a minimum, the study should answer the following 
questions:
          (1) To what extent have DoD and its components issued 
        and effectively implemented guidance to ensure adequate 
        control, detection and remediation in the event that 
        emerging contaminants are released to the environment?
          (2) What is known about the effectiveness of DoD's 
        and its components' programs to protect public health 
        and the environment from emerging contaminants in such 
        areas as installation drinking water systems and 
        supplies?
          (3) Have the military departments adopted and 
        implemented consistent policies and procedures?
          (4) To what extent are DoD and its service components 
        using guidelines, policies, and advisories established 
        by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for 
        Disease Control and other federal agencies regarding 
        emergent containments. What challenges do they face 
        when interpreting and applying such resources?
          (5) What is the current status of drinking water 
        infrastructure across military installations?

Comptroller General review of F-22A global force posture

    The committee is concerned the proliferation of 
increasingly capable integrated air defense systems (IADS) by 
emerging and reemerging potential adversaries have created 
regions where fourth-generation airborne systems likely cannot 
operate. Additionally, potential adversary air-to-air 
capabilities are rapidly approaching parity with, and in some 
cases, surpassing, the capabilities of U.S. and allied fourth 
generation fighter aircraft.
    Based on these factors, the committee is concerned the 
global force posture of America's only currently fielded and 
fully operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22A, may not 
be optimized to deter, and if necessary, quickly defeat any 
potential adversary hostile actions in a variety of regions 
around the globe.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study conducted by the Comptroller 
General, with preliminary observations due no later than March 
3, 2017 and a final report to follow. The review, assessment, 
and recommendations by the Comptroller General should include, 
but are not limited to:
          (1) Most efficient and combat effective F-22A 
        squadron size in numbers of primary assigned aircraft 
        and deployable unit type code packages;
          (2) Optimal ratio in the F-22A fleet of primary 
        mission aircraft inventory to backup aircraft inventory 
        and attrition reserve aircraft;
          (3) Consideration of small fleet size characteristics 
        and constraints;
          (4) Optimal ratio of overseas versus continental 
        United States (CONUS) stationed F-22A units;
          (5) Optimal locations for overseas regional and CONUS 
        stationing of F-22A units to provide most effective 
        presentation of fifth-generation airborne forces to 
        regional combatant commanders;
          (6) Consideration of F-22A global force posture in 
        anticipation of increased fielding of F-35 Joint Strike 
        Fighter aircraft; and
          (7) Other information such that the Comptroller 
        General considers appropriate to include in the report.

Cyber implementation at the combat training centers

    The committee recognizes and is strongly encouraged by the 
cyber training support to corps and below (CSCB) pilot program 
implemented through the cyber opposing forces support during 
every Joint Readiness Training Center and National Training 
Center rotation. The committee understands that the CSCB pilot 
prepares combat training centers (CTC) to execute cyberspace 
operations and is intended to inform Army-wide doctrine, 
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 
personnel, and facilities development. The committee further 
understands that any future changes in the cyber force will be 
informed through the CSCB pilot, subsequent lessons learned, 
and the 2016 CTC Program Comprehensive Review, which will 
conduct an analysis for increased contested cyberspace activity 
at the CTCs.

Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 
2017 on established cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids 
and installation energy and utility systems. The guidelines 
should recognize that installation energy managers may not 
currently have the expertise to identify and mitigate 
cybersecurity threats and that cybersecurity managers tasked 
with maintaining the functionality of the electricity grid may 
not have the expertise to be able to provide solutions required 
to maintain the functionality of a micro-grid or installation. 
The report should be unclassified, but may contain a classified 
annex as deemed appropriate.

Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs

    The committee notes the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
sources and provides nearly every consumable item used by our 
military forces worldwide. The committee also notes the 
Department of Defense (DOD) uses the defense-wide working 
capital fund to cover DOD's costs for providing services and 
purchasing commodities under three DLA activity groups: supply 
chain management, energy management, and document services. The 
committee understands the defense-wide working capital fund is 
reimbursed through DLA's sale of commodities and services to 
the military services and other customers, such as other 
federal agencies and foreign military sales. The committee 
further understands that DLA incorporates overhead costs into 
the reimbursement rates it charges its customers, which DLA 
uses to offset facilities sustainment, restoration, and 
modernization; transportation; storage, and other costs.
    The committee is interested in the potential for improving 
DLA's overhead cost estimates, which could, in turn, contribute 
to more accurate budget estimates and potential savings.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate: (1) the nature and size of 
DLA activities financed by overhead costs reimbursed through 
the defense-wide working capital fund; (2) how DLA calculates 
overhead costs for the commodities and services it manages 
through the defense-wide working capital fund; (3) how DLA's 
estimated overhead costs have compared to actual costs since 
fiscal year 2009, and factors that have contributed to any 
differences; and (4) the options, if any, DLA has considered in 
adjusting its approach to determining overhead costs in light 
of any differences between estimated and actual overhead costs.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee 
not later than March 15, 2017, on preliminary findings of the 
evaluation with a final report to be due by June 30, 2017.

Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial carriers

    The committee notes that the National Airlift Policy (NAP) 
was established to ensure that military and commercial air 
carrier resources are able to meet defense mobilization and 
deployment requirements. The committee further notes that 
section 5 of the NAP states, ``Consistent with the requirement 
to maintain the proficiency and operational readiness of 
organic military airlift, the Department of Defense (DOD) shall 
establish appropriate levels for peacetime cargo airlift 
augmentation in order to promote the effectiveness of the Civil 
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and provide training within the 
military airlift system.'' The committee further notes that 
section 9517 of title 10, United States Code, states, ``[I]t is 
the policy of the United States to maintain the readiness and 
interoperability of Civil Reserve Air Fleet carriers by 
providing appropriate levels of peacetime airlift augmentation 
to maintain networks and infrastructure, exercise the system, 
and interface effectively within the military airlift system.''
    The committee is concerned, however, that there is no clear 
definition of what constitutes ``readiness'' or 
``interoperability'' in regard to commercial carriers. The 
committee understands that this has led to misunderstandings 
about how best to promote the effectiveness of the CRAF and 
what constitutes training within the military airlift system. 
The committee also recognizes that the absence of definitions 
has resulted in different assessments of what level of 
commercial augmentation is sufficient to meet DOD's readiness 
and interoperability requirements. The committee notes that 
according to DOD's Report, as mandated by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
commercial augmentation levels will remain well above the 
minimum required for readiness and interoperability for the 
foreseeable future. The committee believes, however, a 
definition of readiness and interoperability, with associated 
metrics, would help determine if the level of commercial 
augmentation is achieving the intent of the National Airlift 
Policy and title 10. The committee notes this will provide a 
more realistic assessment of the ability of commercial carriers 
to operate within the military airlift system.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to develop definitions of readiness and interoperability for 
CRAF and suitable metrics to determine that readiness and 
interoperability are achieved, to include an explanation of the 
weighting of ground based activities, as specified in the 
``Level of Readiness of CRAF Carriers'', and engagements versus 
level of commercial aircraft activity at DOD aerial ports. In 
determining those definitions, the committee directs the 
Department to consult with its CRAF partners through its semi-
annual meetings and other forums.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Department to 
include those definitions and metrics in the next ``Level of 
Readiness of CRAF Carriers'' report to Congress due 
concurrently with the submission of the President's budget for 
fiscal year 2018.

Demilitarization of conventional munitions

    The committee notes that at current funding levels, the 
stockpile of conventional munitions awaiting demilitarization 
is projected to grow from approximately 480,000 tons to more 
than 700,000 tons by 2021.
    The committee notes that in light of current budget 
constraints, coupled with an increased emphasis on training 
within all of the military services, destruction or sale of 
these munitions should be a last resort. The committee further 
notes that even though the stockpile awaiting to be 
demilitarized is growing, it is concerning that procurement of 
some munitions continues to rise. The committee believes that 
procedures for how these munitions are classified as suitable 
for use or that they must be demilitarized could lead to cost 
savings and increased military readiness. In addition, the 
Government Accountability Office noted in its 2016 annual 
report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication that DOD 
could potentially reduce its storage, demilitarization, and 
disposal costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars by 
transferring excess serviceable conventional ammunition, 
including small arms ammunition, to federal, state, and local 
government agencies.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit an assessment to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 
later than February 1, 2017. The assessment shall include: (1) 
a review of the requirements for how excess munitions are 
utilized for operational or training purposes prior to being 
classified for demilitarization and any recommendations for how 
to improve this process to reduce both the stockpile and new 
procurement costs; (2) options for reducing risk, enhancing 
efficiency, and achieving cost reductions, such as maximizing 
the proximity of demilitarization operations to 
demilitarization asset storage locations in order to minimize 
cost and risk associated with transportation; and (3) a 
parallel timeline for how procurement of munitions and the 
demilitarization of munitions will continue until the stockpile 
is below 50,000 tons.
    The committee further encourages the Secretary to leverage 
expertise from industry and academia to advance affordable 
demilitarization technologies.

Department of Defense transportation protective services

    The committee notes that as a result of the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) review of the policies and 
procedures used by the Department of Defense (DOD) in the 
handling of hazardous material shipments, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 directed U.S. 
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) to submit a report that 
examines the data limitations of the Department of 
Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's 
(FMCSA) Safety and Accountability Program and report on what 
changes, if any, should be made to the process used by DOD to 
determine hazardous material carrier eligibility and evaluate 
performance of carriers within the Transportation Protective 
Service (TPS).
    Accordingly, based on the GAO review and USTRANSCOM report, 
the committee directs the Commander of USTRANSCOM to provide a 
report to the Congressional Defense and Commerce Committees no 
later than November 1, 2016. The report should include a review 
and updates to the existing plan, as required, to ensure that 
USTRANSCOM has a comprehensive program that evaluates the 
safety of commercial carriers and their ability to move DOD 
hazardous TPS cargo. Additionally, the report should include 
USTRANSCOM's strategy and timeline for developing and 
implementing ways to incentivize carrier safety performance. 
Finally, the committee encourages USTRANSCOM continue to 
coordinate with the Department of Transportation on proven 
safety technologies for inclusion in future requirements for 
carriers transporting the most sensitive or extremely dangerous 
cargo.

Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy

    The committee notes that one of the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) most pressing concerns continues to be the readiness of 
its weapon systems and the cost to sustain readiness. The 
Department spends billions of dollars each year to sustain its 
weapon systems. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 
2009 directed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review 
of the growth in operating and support costs of major weapon 
systems. The GAO found that the Department did not have key 
information to manage life-cycle costs. The committee believes 
that the development of a sustainment strategy that includes 
goals, performance measures, and key initiatives could help to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of sustaining DOD 
weapon systems.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report on the strategy for weapon system 
sustainment to the congressional defense committees in the 
House and Senate no later than January 2, 2017. The strategy 
should cover the entire logistics lifecycle from production 
through battlefield use, retrograde and organic repair or 
modification, or disposal. The strategy will include at a 
minimum the following elements: (1) key sustainment principles 
and their inclusion at every step of the acquisition processes; 
(2) product support; (3) supply chain integration; (4) asset 
visibility; (5) data rights; (6) software sustainment; (7) 
sustainment engineering; (8) private and public maintenance, 
repair, and overhaul; (9) nuclear sustainment; (10) war reserve 
material; (11) distribution; and (12) operational contracting.

Department of Defense's use of executive agents

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
various management approaches that it uses to improve 
efficiency in its programs and activities. For example, the 
committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has designated 
executive agents across the Department to provide defined 
levels of support for operational missions, or administrative 
or other designated activities that involve two or more 
Department components. The committee is also aware that prior 
work by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 
the Department had opportunities to improve executive agent 
management efforts for foreign language support. The committee 
believes that given the Department's use of executive agents 
for numerous programs and activities, additional opportunities 
may exist to gain further efficiencies in areas outside of the 
GAO's previous review.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the Department's use of 
executive agents, to include an assessment of the following: 
(1) A description of the types of programs and activities for 
which DOD has established executive agents; (2) The 
Department's use of executive agents to focus its resources in 
specific areas in order to maximize fragmentation, unnecessary 
overlap, or duplication; (3) The Department's evaluation of the 
performance of its executive agents' efforts for effectiveness 
and efficiency in meeting program needs; (4) Additional 
opportunities for the Department to gain further efficiencies 
in executive agent management efforts; (5) Identification of 
specific statutory, regulatory, practice, resource allocation, 
or cultural impediments to the most effective and efficient use 
of executive agents as a management practice by the Department; 
and (6) Identification of best practices in the use of 
executive agents.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than March 15, 
2017, on preliminary findings of the evaluation with a final 
report to follow by June 30, 2017.

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

    The committee believes the expanding role of women in 
combat positions provides an opportunity to improve the 
personal protective equipment (PPE), organizational clothing, 
and individual equipment (OCIE) for both male and female 
warfighters to ensure the best fit to gain a tactical advantage 
through increased maneuverability. The committee recognizes the 
advances made to date regarding weight reduction in PPE and 
OCIE, and further believes that the Department should continue 
to seek to take advantage of the best technology available to 
reduce PPE and OCIE weight for all servicemembers.
    The committee notes that the Department has often acquired 
individual equipment such as boots, helmets, combat clothing, 
and body armor for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a 
piecemeal manner. The committee encourages the services to 
consider appropriately addressing the unique needs of both male 
and female service members through a comprehensive acquisition 
strategy that seeks to improve OCIE and PPE through an 
integrated combat ensemble designed to meet validated 
operational requirements.
    The committee understands that on June 26, 2015, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 
provided guidance to the services to take immediate steps to 
ensure that combat equipment is properly designed and fitted 
for female servicemembers. The committee also understands that 
the services are conducting anthropometric studies on their 
male and female servicemembers that will help each service 
properly outfit and equip their respective servicemembers.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the service chiefs, to submit a 
report no later than February 1, 2017 to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
The report shall include: (1) an acquisition strategy, by 
service branch, for the PPE and OCIE needs of both male and 
female service members; (2) the Department's plan to provide 
improved PPE and OCIE developed for all service members to meet 
validated operational requirements; and (3) any plans for 
budgeting, development, and procurement of female-specific 
equipment needs, validated through the requirements process, 
including helmets, clothing, and body armor. The report may be 
classified, or for official use only, as deemed appropriate by 
the Secretary, but if classified should include an unclassified 
executive summary.

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program

    The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing 
the Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by 
sequestration. Additionally, the committee is aware of the 
Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which contributes 
to military readiness and provides realistic training in a 
joint environment for National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty 
members, preparing them to serve during a national crisis at 
home or abroad.
    Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited to, 
constructing rural roads and airplane runways, small building 
and warehouse construction in remote areas; transportation of 
medical supplies, and military readiness training in the areas 
of engineering, health care and transportation for under-served 
communities.
    The committee understands the IRT program offers complex 
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and 
international crises. The committee is also aware that states 
that utilize the IRT program include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South 
Dakota, and Texas.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense 
to continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on 
and mission-essential training and that are available to 
active, reserve and National Guard forces.

Energy resiliency metrics

    The committee remains interested in the capability of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to assign a value to energy 
resiliency and mission assurance for its installations. The 
committee believes that having appropriate energy resiliency 
and mission assurance metrics could enable DOD and installation 
commanders to document the value of energy security to better 
inform infrastructure investment decisions. The committee is 
concerned that the Department and the military services may not 
currently or consistently evaluate the impact of energy 
disruptions and outages on its facilities and installations. 
For example, current methods by which utility disruptions and 
outages are tracked and evaluated by DOD may not account for 
costs associated with loss of mission capability. The committee 
is also concerned that energy resiliency and mission assurance 
evaluations and planning may vary within each military service 
as well as across DOD. Additionally, a consistent valuation 
methodology could encourage industry to develop new business 
models and third party financing mechanisms to help DOD achieve 
greater energy resiliency and mission assurance on its 
installations.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 30, 2017 with established metrics to evaluate the costs, 
risks, and benefits associated with energy resiliency and 
mission assurance against energy supply disruptions on military 
facilities and installations. The metrics should take into 
account financial and operational costs and risks associated 
with sustained losses of power resulting from natural or man-
made disasters or attacks that impact military installations.

Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate pricing

    The committee is encouraged that in response to concerns 
raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the 
Department of Defense (DOD) has adjusted its methodology for 
determining the fiscal year 2017 fuel rate price by basing it 
on the Gas and Oil price index included in the Administration's 
economic assumptions and incorporating relevant data on actual 
fuel prices prevailing during the most recent fiscal year. The 
committee notes that the GAO's November 2015 report, however, 
highlighted the fact that the Department still had not fully 
documented its process for selecting a methodology for 
estimating its fuel rate pricing. In order to account for real-
time changes in the world-wide fuel market, the committee 
believes the Department should retain reasonable flexibility in 
determining and applying an appropriate methodology underlying 
the estimate of the next fiscal year's fuel rate price.
    The committee remains concerned about the quality and 
transparency of information available to Congressional decision 
makers and Department fuel customers concerning the methodology 
selected each year and its application to relevant data used in 
estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. A well-
documented methodology allows decision makers and other 
stakeholders to understand and evaluate the Department's budget 
requests and make informed decisions concerning annual funding 
levels. The committee notes the Department's budget 
justification materials for fiscal year 2017 do not specify the 
process by which the Department evaluated any methodological 
options for developing its fuel rate pricing.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense 
committee no later than February 1, 2017 on how DOD will take 
steps to develop and implement a process for the annual review 
and selection and application of an appropriate methodology for 
estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal. The detailed 
guidance should also include the process for the identification 
of an appropriate methodology to assess the accuracy of 
estimated fuel rate prices as compared with actual fuel prices 
for the most recent fiscal year, and the establishment of a 
detailed process for the annual development of estimated fuel 
rates prices for the next fiscal year, to include requiring 
documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over 
another for estimating the next fiscal year's fuel rate price, 
including the limitations and assumptions of underlying data 
and establishing a timeline for developing annual estimated 
fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year.
    Lastly, the committee will continue to monitor the 
Department's efforts and may direct further action if the 
process for determining fuel pricing does not achieve greater 
transparency.

Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement process major 
        range test base facilities

    The committee notes that major range test base facilities 
(MRTFBs) operate under the reimbursable research, development, 
test, and environment model of billing for direct costs of 
service, which is different than at typical operational 
training ranges. The committee further notes that the Test 
Resource Management Center of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense recently reported to Congress that it has not 
identified problems with reimbursement procedures for units 
training at MRTFBs. The committee remains concerned that a 
number of optimal and potentially lower cost training 
opportunities are declined by operational training units due to 
the difficulty of locating funds to reimburse MRTFBs.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than February 
1, 2017. The report shall: (1) examine how the reimbursement 
process for the MRTFBs relate to operational unit payment 
procedures and (2) include any recommendations for legislative 
or administrative action to make it easier for operational 
units to comply with the MRTFBs reimbursement process, 
including any recommendations specific to White Sands Missile 
Range, Utah Test and Training Range, Yuma Proving Ground, and 
Aberdeen Test Center.

Expanding the number of younger cyber security professionals on 
        Department of Defense contracts

    The committee is concerned that current labor category 
practices on Department of Defense (DOD) contracts may 
unnecessarily discriminate against younger cyber security 
professionals. These workers are often the best and brightest 
workers in the cyber security field but the committee has been 
informed that they are finding it increasingly difficult to be 
included on contractor teams to address DOD cyber security 
needs. This is because in many cases DOD procurement officials 
are requiring specific tenure requirements for the contracting 
workforce and younger workers do not have the years of 
experience required by these labor category requirements.
    While the Department rightly desires to have experienced 
scientists and engineers working on federal contracts, by not 
including or funding labor categories for students, interns, 
co-ops, and recent college graduates in the cyber security 
field it may be eliminating some of the most promising software 
developers from being considered for work on a DOD contract. 
The committee believes that Silicon Valley companies would not 
make such a mistake. Another possible strategy for the 
Department to pursue would be to forgo specific labor category 
requirements and write performance specifications that would 
allow contractors to bring together the best team that they see 
fit to address the cyber challenge. To inform the committee on 
the best path forward to address acquisition policy in these 
situations, the committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor 
to the Secretary of Defense to assess current approaches to 
accessing the next generation of cyber professionals on DOD 
contracts and brief the committee on how labor categories are 
being used to contract for cyber security support, an 
identification of current best practices for cyber support 
acquisition, and any recommendations necessary to more 
adequately address the cyber security contracting workforce.

Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic division officer 
        course

    The committee notes the strides that have been made in 
improving training for new surface warfare officers (SWO). From 
2004 until the establishment of the basic division officer 
course (BDOC) in 2012, newly commissioned SWOs reported to 
their first ships with little to no training. Once aboard their 
ships, ensigns completed on-the-job training and computer-based 
training to earn qualifications.
    The committee further notes that in contrast, other Navy 
unrestricted line communities provided and continue to provide 
new officers with initial training prior to reporting to their 
first command to achieve basic skills and proficiency (e.g., 
submariners attend the submarine officers basic course and 
nuclear training, aviators attend flight training, and SEALs 
attend Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEAL training). In 2012, 
the surface warfare community launched the basic division 
officer course to provide an intensive, 8-week course of 
instruction designed to provide foundational classroom training 
to newly reported prospective SWOs. The committee notes that 
shiphandling training at BDOC is conducted exclusively on 
simulators.
    The committee commends the Navy on establishing SWOs BDOC, 
but believes more should be done. Yard patrol craft have been 
used at the U.S. Naval Academy for decades to teach navigation, 
seamanship, and shiphandling to midshipmen. Similar benefits, 
specifically tailored to the qualifications that new SWOs must 
attain, could be gained by relocating yard patrol craft to BDOC 
locations. These benefits provide fundamental skills in an at-
sea training environment, including: shiphandling, navigation, 
radar operation, bridge resource management, seamanship, and 
maintenance.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to consider reactivating and relocating 
three yard patrol craft from Annapolis, Maryland to the SWO 
School BDOC in Norfolk, Virginia and three yard patrol craft 
from Annapolis, Maryland to the BDOC in San Diego, California.

Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases

    The committee notes that the Base Camp Integration Lab 
(BOIL) at Fort Devens, Massachusetts provides the Army with an 
operational base camp to integrate and evaluate more effective 
technologies in power generation, shelter, energy management 
microgrids, and water reuse, which combine into a more 
effective forward operating base called the Force Provider 
Expeditionary (FPE) module. These combined BCIL improvements 
and FPE modules reduce forward operating base fuel consumption 
by more than 50 percent. The committee believes that by 
reducing reliance on energy sources and becoming more 
efficient, the military services become more agile and 
effective in combat, which reduces the risk to servicemembers' 
lives, frees up assets to conduct combat missions rather than 
provide security for resupply convoys, and ultimately saves 
taxpayer's money.
    The committee recognizes and is very encouraged by the 
Army's FPE modules, as well as similar efforts by the Marine 
Corps' Expeditionary Energy Office, which focuses on extending 
the operational reach of the Marine Air Ground Task Force.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes and is very 
encouraged by the Air Force's Forward Operating Base of the 
Future located at the Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills 
Training (BEAST) site--including Basic Expeditionary Airfield 
Resources (BEAR). The committee continues to believe that the 
Department of Defense has a critical requirement to leverage 
technologies that will enhance combat capability and may 
deliver energy efficient returns on investment. For example, 
one retrofitted zone of the BEAST site will reduce the energy 
footprint by 85 percent. Additionally, the medium shelters 
procured through the BEAR program reduce heat and air 
conditioning requirements by at least 35 percent.
    The committee understands that the Army has deployed FPE 
modules to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa in support of the 
Ebola response during Operation United Assistance. The 
committee is also encouraged by collaborative efforts that have 
occurred between the Army FPE and Air Force BEAR to share 
lessons learned. The committee notes that the Army currently 
has 232 FPE modules in its inventory, with 21 currently 
deployed to Iraq, seven in Afghanistan, one in Cameroon, and 
many others at prepositioned stocks around the globe.
    However, the committee is concerned that it appears more 
effective and efficient base camp technologies are not widely 
known assets across the military departments.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a report or briefing to the committee no later than 
February 1, 2017 detailing how the military services can 
broaden the use of FPE modules, BEAR, and Marine Corps 
expeditionary energy systems, including any plans to modify 
unit tables of equipment or programs of record to include FPE 
modules, BEAR, and Marine Corps expeditionary energy systems.

Flame resistant uniforms

    The committee understands that the military services 
continue to evaluate emerging flame resistant technologies that 
may have the potential to provide a more cost-effective level 
of protection to a wider range of service members. The 
committee also understands that the Army and the Marine Corps 
have conducted a study to evaluate commercial flame resistant 
applications that could be more affordable, provide enhanced 
protective qualities, are more breathable, and are more durable 
when compared to current flame resistant uniforms.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide an 
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2017 that 
outlines developmental efforts to date, assesses technology 
readiness, and describes future efforts to appropriately 
resource and equip flame resistant protective postures for 
military personnel. Additionally, the committee strongly 
encourages both services to review and consider any necessary 
and appropriate updates to personal protective equipment 
requirements to include potentially equipping flame resistant 
protective postures based on the threat and operating 
environment.

Foreign language training report

    The committee notes the importance of foreign language 
proficiency to ensure military readiness objectives are met by 
the numerous defense agencies and military services, including 
the intelligence community. The committee notes that in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report that identifies the capability gaps in advanced 
foreign language proficiency within the military services and 
other relevant U.S. federal government agencies that support 
Department of Defense and military operations. The committee 
notes that the Department has not met the mandated deadline for 
this report.
    To avoid possibly legislating on this matter without the 
Department's input, the committee directs the Department to 
submit the report as mandated in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 as soon as possible.

Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover reductions

    The committee notes that depot maintenance carryover 
consists of funded orders that are not completed by the end of 
the fiscal year, which is frequently the result of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) receiving appropriations from 
Congress late in a fiscal year, often with not enough time to 
execute scheduled work. Cuts to carryover in the operation and 
maintenance (O&M;) accounts have a disproportionately negative 
impact on production orders, systems, and the defense 
industrial base workforce. Reductions to carryover in O&M; 
increase depot rates by reducing future workload and ultimately 
decreases the military services and customer buying power. In 
an era of unstable budget certainty and frequently late 
appropriations, having an appropriate amount of carryover on-
hand can provide a continuous and effective means of production 
across fiscal years in the event of a continuing resolution. 
The committee notes that excessive carryover, as determined by 
specified service-range limits, should not be construed as 
appropriate carryover. Rather, appropriate carryover is the 
amount that falls between the high and low thresholds.
    The committee remains very concerned that indiscriminate 
cuts to carryover directly correlates to the loss of work at 
DOD depots, shipyards, and air logistics centers, which in turn 
negatively impacts units and the warfighter.
    At a time when readiness cannot afford to take unnecessary 
cuts, appropriation reductions to carryover in Army O&M; within 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) 
resulted in a plethora of negative operational impacts to 
warfighter readiness: (1) the loss of approximately 332,000 
direct labor hours prevented the overhaul and repair of two M1 
Abrams tanks, 24 Stryker vehicles, 12 Paladin systems, 13 
M777A2 medium howitzers, 24 M119A2 towed howitzers, seven M113 
vehicles, 13 M88 recovery vehicles, over 2,000 individual and 
crew served weapons, approximately 3,000 gas masks, eight M9ACE 
earthmovers, and reduced combat vehicle evaluations prior to 
induction to depot maintenance at Anniston Army Depot and Pine 
Bluff Arsenal (for gas masks); (2) the loss of approximately 
197,000 direct labor hours prevented the repair and overhaul of 
two MH-60H Special Operations aircraft, two UH-60 Blackhawk 
helicopters, and one AH-64D aircraft at Corpus Christi Army 
Depot; (3) the loss of approximately 164,000 direct labor hours 
prevented the inspection, repair, and overhaul of 42 systems, 
to include PATRIOT missile re-certifications and overhaul of 
PATRIOT sub-systems and 46 programs that support the repair of 
high mobility artillery rocket system and 13 forklifts at 
Letterkenny Army Depot; and (4) the loss of approximately 
504,000 direct labor hours prevented the inspection, repair, 
and overhaul of eight AN/TPQ-37 fire finder radar systems, 
three AN/TRC-70 tropospheric scatter microwave radio terminals, 
20 AN/TRC-190 line-of-sight multi-channel radio terminals, 154 
AN/ASM-146/147/189/190 Avionics and electronics shop vans, 145 
standard integrated command post system shelters, a variety of 
communications security equipment supporting strategic and 
tactical command environments, 12 strategic satellite 
communications terminals, and field support for the Guardrail 
system at Tobyhanna Army Depot.
    The result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act cuts to 
Army O&M; for carryover meant that equipment that needed repairs 
to fill unit shortages did not occur for the following Army, 
Army Reserve, and Army National Guard units in North Carolina, 
Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Hawaii, New York, Kentucky, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, California, Kansas, Georgia, Colorado, Washington, 
Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, and Southwest Asia.
    Additionally, a $24.0 million cut to Navy O&M; in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 for carryover negatively 
impacted the operational readiness of our Marines by preventing 
the depot maintenance of: 18 MRAP CAT IIs, 7 M1A1 tanks, 226 
.50 caliber machine guns, 2 medium tactical vehicle 
replacements, 11 scout sniper scopes, 2 mine clearing blades, 7 
radios, 2 generators, 1 communication system, and 1 tactical 
water purification system at a cost of approximately 71,000 
direct labor hours at Albany, Georgia and Barstow, California. 
These reductions also had the expected effect of reducing the 
depot workforce by 44 positions.
    Accordingly, the committee remains strongly against 
unnecessary carryover cuts to O&M; accounts as they directly 
attribute to reduced workload for the defense industrial base 
and negatively impact warfighter readiness at a time where 
readiness should remain Congress' top priority.

Installation security

    The committee notes that in the 15 years since 9/11, the 
services have taken different approaches to vetting and 
screening individuals that require access to military 
installations. Despite insider events like those at the 
Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the services continue to work internally to develop 
and deploy credentialing and physical access control systems 
(PACS), while at the same time often using commercial systems 
that meet all stated requirements at little or no cost to the 
Department. In some instances, installations that have not 
contracted with commercial providers are not scanning 
credentials at all because internally developed DOD systems are 
not working properly, are still in development, and are very 
expensive to deploy by the services and to maintain by base 
commanders. Today, there are dozens of military installations 
that are not scanning credentials, leaving these facilities 
vulnerable to a range of risks. This situation is indefensible 
especially when the services have years of experience 
successfully using commercial credentialing and PACS systems. 
The Army's current plan for its Automated Installation Entry 
(AIE II+) PACS system would have full deployment at Army 
garrisons by 2022--21 years post 9/11. By contrast the U.S. 
Coast Guard has already deployed a commercial enterprise based 
credentialing and PACS system at 12 stations with each 
installation taking less than 5 weeks. The committee strongly 
believes the Secretary of Defense and the services need to 
update DOD policy and guidance concerning internally developed 
credentialing and PACS efforts to ensure that commercial 
systems are being utilized to the fullest extent possible.

Item unique identification implementation and verification

    The committee continues to monitor the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) strategy for improving asset tracking and in-
transit visibility. The committee supports the Department's 
goal of enhancing asset visibility through item unique 
identification (IUID), automatic identification technology 
(AIT), and automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) 
processes. However, the committee remains concerned with the 
Department's level of compliance with its own policy. 
Specifically, the committee remains concerned that DOD 
continues to lack a plan and timeline to adopt, implement, and 
verify its revised policy IUID, AIT, and AIDC across the 
Department and the defense industrial base.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 
1, 2016 on its new policies, timelines, procedures, staff 
training, and equipment to ensure contract compliance with the 
IUID policy for all items that require unique item level 
traceability at any time in their life cycle, to support 
counterfeit material risk reduction, and to provide for 
systematic assessment and accuracy of IUID marks as set forth 
by DOD Instruction 8320.04.

Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning

    The committee notes that in section 321 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for 
implementing a prepositioning strategic policy that establishes 
a coordinated joint-military service approach for DOD's 
prepositioned stock programs, in order to maximize efficiencies 
across the department, not later than 120 days after the date 
of the Act--that is, by April 24, 2014. However, DOD has not 
yet developed the required strategy or implementation plan, as 
directed; instead, DOD has informed the committees that it 
would develop Department-wide guidance in the form of a DOD 
directive for managing DOD's prepositioned stock programs 
before developing an implementation plan, which it would submit 
within 120 days after the DOD directive had been approved. 
However, DOD has not identified a timeline for completing the 
directive and meeting the requirements of section 321 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
    As early as May 2011, GAO recommended that DOD develop a 
department-wide strategy on prepositioned stocks and that it 
strengthen joint oversight of its prepositioned stock programs 
to integrate and synchronize at a DOD-wide level the services' 
prepositioned stock programs, in order to maximize efficiency 
in managing prepositioning across the department and to reduce 
potentially unnecessary duplication.
    The committee remains concerned about DOD's lack of 
progress in developing a prepositioned stock strategy and 
implementation plan.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 1, 2016 a timeline by which it will complete the 
Department-wide directive and implementation plan, and to 
include in the timeline the major steps DOD plans to take in 
implementing the plan, with target dates for accomplishing each 
of them that can be used to monitor progress and report 
results.

Modernization of emergency power generation

    The committee notes that the emergency power generation 
systems frequently used in Army National Guard armories can be 
plagued by unreliable operation in addition to high operation 
and maintenance costs. The committee notes that the Army has 
plans and programs in place to address the operational 
requirements, technological opportunities, and industrial base 
challenges associated with the strategic goal of a net zero 
energy, water, and waste policy.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 1, 2017 with a comprehensive strategy, including a 
development and implementation plan, that replaces or improves 
emergency power generation readiness, reduces system 
maintenance, and improves fuel flexibility to ensure the 
sustainability of all Department emergency power generation 
systems in operation.

National Test and Training Range Improvements

    The committee is aware of the critical role our national 
assets of test and training ranges play in providing full-
spectrum readiness critical for all of our Services, and large 
live training exercises as one of the key components to this 
training.
    National test and training ranges such as the Joint Pacific 
Alaska Range Complex (JPARC), Pacific Missile Range Facility, 
Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), Utah Test and Training 
Range (UTTR), China Lake Complex, White Sands Missile Range 
(WSMR), the National Training Center (NTC), Eglin Gulf Test and 
Training Range (EGTTR), as well as other United States-based 
ranges, are critical to hosting realistic service, joint, and 
coalition large force training exercises such as RED FLAG, RED 
FLAG-Alaska, Northern Edge, Army Network Integration 
Evaluation, and other large force training exercises. The 
committee also recognizes the need for secure and modem range 
complexes to host coalition and international partner training 
exercises.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes the critical 
importance of expansive and tactically relevant training ranges 
that contain high fidelity air-to-air, surface-to-air, surface-
to-surface, subsurface, and command, control, communication, 
computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and 
cyber assets to simulate anticipated threat environments for 
the coming decades.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Service Secretaries, to develop a 
strategic plan for identifying requirements and priorities, 
resourcing for national test and training range infrastructure 
improvements and addressing encroachment mitigation. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to provide both a written plan 
and briefing to the congressional defense committees no later 
than 180 days following the enactment of this Act.

New Hampshire water contamination

    As the committee noted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Report (114-29), 
the Air Force in coordination with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services (NHDES), and the City of Portsmouth--discovered the 
presence of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in the Haven Well in 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On August 3, 2015, the EPA issued a 
final order directing the Air Force to clean up the 
contamination at the Haven Well. According to the order, the 
Air Force has caused or contributed to the presence of the 
chemicals in the well in Portsmouth due to the Air Force's use 
of fire-fighting foam at the former Pease Air Force Base.
    Research has associated exposure to these chemicals to 
adverse health effects including but not limited to increased 
cholesterol, increased blood pressure, liver damage and 
possibly cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they were at 
risk of exposure have requested tests to check their blood 
serum levels of PFCs.
    The PFC contamination detected at the Haven Well has also 
been detected at the Harrison and Smith wells. The Air Force 
has committed to using the best available technology to treat 
the water at the wells and return it to safe drinking water 
levels.
    While unrelated to the contamination at Pease, the 
committee notes that an increasing number of communities across 
New Hampshire have reportedly identified the presence of 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and that potential health effects 
of using water contaminated by PFOA remain unknown. According 
to reports, levels of PFOA have been detected in the public and 
private water supplies in the communities of Merrimack, 
Litchfield, Bedford, Londonderry, and Dover. Public and private 
wells in these communities are being tested by the NHDES. The 
EPA has identified PFOA as an ``emerging contaminant'' and in 
2009, the Agency issued a provisional health advisory for 
drinking water of 400 ppt for PFOA.
    The committee believes the Air Force should work 
collaboratively with NHDES and EPA to share lessons learned 
from Haven Well. No later than September 1, 2016, the Air Force 
should provide the committee with: (1) an update on the Haven 
well cleanup; (2) an update on the Air Force's efforts to 
identify and notify all affected or impacted by the 
contamination; (3) an assessment of the Air Force's role, if 
any, in the new contaminations; and (4) a summary of the Air 
Force's support, where appropriate, for NHDES and the EPA with 
respect to the latest contaminations.

Objective training readiness reporting

    The committee is aware that some of the military services 
have efforts underway to establish objective and uniform 
standards to measure the training readiness of military forces. 
The committee notes, for example, that the Army is 
standardizing lists of mission essential tasks for like units 
below the brigade level and developing objective evaluation 
criteria that commanders will use to evaluate unit training 
against these critical tasks. The committee further notes that 
according to Army senior leadership, these initiatives will 
facilitate accurate and uniform readiness evaluations and 
enable the service to make risk-informed resourcing and force 
allocation decisions.
    The committee notes that these initiatives to more 
objectively evaluate training readiness may continue the 
practice of giving commanders the flexibility to subjectively 
upgrade or downgrade the overall readiness of their units in 
certain circumstances based on the commander's judgement in 
light of a mission analysis, among other factors. While 
recognizing that commanders may require some degree of 
flexibility in assessing their units' training readiness based 
on subjective factors, the committee stresses the importance of 
accurate readiness reporting and encourages all of the military 
services to define objective and uniform standards to assess 
training readiness.
    Accordingly, the committee further encourages the military 
services to limit the use of subjective readiness upgrades, 
which could mask the department's progress transitioning from a 
force trained to conduct counterinsurgency operations to one 
trained for a broader range of military operations. The 
committee will continue to monitor the military services' 
development of objective and uniform standards to evaluate 
training readiness and may direct further action, including 
limiting the use of subjective upgrades, if these standards are 
not fully utilized in readiness reporting.

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

    The committee notes that Security Risk Category I (SRCI) 
ammunition items, including certain man-portable missiles and 
rockets, are extremely lethal and a potential threat if they 
were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help 
protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it 
is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD) have strong 
physical security measures at DOD and contractor locations.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office's February 2015 report on SRCI ammunition items found 
that enhanced policy and procedures are needed to improve 
management of sensitive conventional ammunition, specifically 
the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of information to 
maintain full accountability and visibility of SRCI ammunition 
items.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DOD 
and the military services, in accordance with policies and 
procedures, have established and maintained physical security 
measures at DOD and contractor locations, and (2) these 
identified physical security measures differ between selected 
DOD depots and retail locations, as well as at selected 
contractor locations.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on 
preliminary findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation 
with a report to follow no later than June 1, 2017.

Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support defense 
        operations

    The committee notes that ongoing operational demands for 
Navy ships remain high and continue to increase, with some key 
current demands going unmet. The committee recognizes that the 
Navy is working to maximize the operational availability of the 
existing fleet and rebuild its warfighting readiness after more 
than a decade of continued deployments. The Navy has identified 
shipyard performance--namely the ability to complete 
maintenance availabilities on time--as one of the key risks to 
its plans to maximize the availability of the fleet.
    The committee notes that any delay in completing a 
maintenance availability results in lost operational days for 
Navy ships, which in turn compresses time available for 
training and reduces ships' operational availability to 
combatant commanders. Maintenance delays also can lead to 
unsustainable risk mitigation strategies such as deferring 
maintenance and extending deployments which can jeopardize 
reaching ships' service lives and retention of the force.
    In the late 1990s, the Navy converted its shipyards from 
financing under the Navy Working Capital Fund to funding 
through direct appropriations, referred to as ``mission 
funding''. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office found 
that the Navy had experienced unfunded shore readiness that 
contributed to growth in the backlog of capital investments at 
the shipyards and noted that the average age of facilities and 
drydocks was 61 and 81 years old, respectively. The ability of 
the shipyards to meet their mission--keeping the fleet 
operational--depends on maintaining the shipyards' 
infrastructure and equipment, and to do this the Navy and the 
committee need an accurate picture of whether the Navy has the 
means to accomplish this so the committee can best exercise 
oversight and make knowledgeable funding decisions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate: (1) the impact, if any, the 
change from working capital funding to mission funding has had 
on shipyard capital investment and performance and (2) the 
extent, if any, the Navy's shipyard planning has addressed its 
restoration and modernization needs to support operational 
readiness. The Comptroller General may also include other 
related matters as deemed appropriate.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on 
preliminary findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation 
with a report to follow by May 15, 2017.

Rebuilding readiness

    The committee notes that due to the consistent high pace of 
operations coupled with significant downsizing of some of the 
military services, the past decade has witnessed a disturbing 
decline in readiness. The Department of Defense (DOD) has 
stated that rebuilding readiness is one of its overarching 
priorities and submitted to Congress plans for readiness 
recovery last year. However, preliminary work from the 
Government Accountability Office evaluating DOD's efforts to 
rebuild readiness shows that DOD lacks comprehensive readiness 
goals or a strategy for achieving those goals.
    Therefore, the committee has grown increasingly concerned 
about the state of military readiness and whether DOD has a 
viable plan for rebuilding it. To inform its oversight, the 
committee directs DOD to submit a detailed plan to the 
congressional defense committees for rebuilding readiness by 
September 30, 2016. DOD's plan should, at a minimum, include: 
comprehensive readiness goals and a strategy for achieving the 
goals; metrics for measuring progress at specific milestones; 
identification of external factors that may impact recovery 
plans and potential mitigations; and plans for Department-level 
oversight of service readiness recovery plans including methods 
for evaluating the effectiveness of readiness recovery efforts. 
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to evaluate DOD's plan for rebuilding readiness 
and provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services by 
February 1, 2017 on any preliminary findings with a report to 
the congressional defense committees to follow no later than 
May 1, 2017.
    In evaluating DOD's readiness recovery plan, the 
Comptroller General should consider the extent to which DOD's 
plan addresses the root causes of degraded readiness; and he 
may, at his discretion and in consultation with the committee, 
provide additional reports that address these root cause issues 
in more detail. Specifically, he should consider doing a 
detailed evaluation of different options for approaching 
readiness and the consequences of each option. In the past, DOD 
has varied its approach to the way it collects and reports 
readiness--applying uniform policies and practices across DOD 
in some cases, while providing the military services and 
combatant commands wide latitude and flexibility in other 
cases.
    Additionally, DOD has varied: the way it applied plans and 
scenarios to determine force structure and readiness 
requirements and the way it has managed personnel tempo in 
mobilizing and deploying its forces. The different approaches 
to these, and other, areas can directly affect: readiness 
requirements, the levels of readiness that are reported, the 
resultant readiness gaps that need to be filled, and ultimately 
the funding requirements for the weapons systems, maintenance, 
personnel, and training that are needed to rebuild readiness.

Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts

    The committee notes that it is important for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) to utilize competition when procuring services 
and equipment. The committee further notes that increased 
competition provides DOD the opportunity to obtain lower 
prices, better technology, and the ability to review the 
marketplace should there be a need for multiple sources. 
Finally, the committee notes the dangers of utilizing sole 
source contracts when due diligence was not done to assess 
alternatives in the marketplace.
    The committee is concerned that too often DOD has used sole 
source contracts thus limiting competition from potential 
suppliers.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 
2017. The report should include a list of each contract awarded 
by the DOD during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 using 
procedures other than competitive procedures or cases where 
solicitations resulted in only one responsive bidder for the 
procurement of equipment, weapons, weapon systems, components, 
subcomponents, or end-items with a contract value equal to or 
greater than $3.0 million. The report shall include for each 
product listed: (1) an identification of the items purchased 
under the contract; (2) the rationale for using an exception or 
waiver to award the contracts using procedures other than 
competitive procedures; and (3) a list of potential alternative 
manufacturing sources from the public and private sector that 
could be developed to establish competition for those items.

Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial base

    The committee appreciates the recent report regarding 
sustainment of the industrial base for the M240. The committee, 
however has concerns that the industry was not consulted in the 
preparation of the sustainment plan.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to 
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives no later than September 30, 
2016. With input from industry, the report should include: (1) 
the Army's sustainment plan for the M240 to include an 
assessment of the necessity of establishing an M240 
recapitalization program. If a recapitalization plan is 
necessary, the timeline and strategy for establishing such a 
program should be included; and (2) the Army's plans to ensure 
the health of the domestic small arms industrial base, 
including both original and spare parts manufacturers.

Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, Navy, Air Force, 
        and Marine Corps servicemembers

    The committee notes the important training servicemembers 
participate in for both combat and non-combat activities. The 
committee believes that both types of training are important to 
develop and maintain not only a lethal, fighting force but also 
a responsible and professional one. The committee is concerned, 
however, that at times some non-combat training may be 
duplicative and take time away from what could be used for 
critical combat training.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the service secretaries, to 
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 
1, 2016. The report shall include non-combat related training 
requirements for all components with: 1) A list and description 
of all non-combat training requirements, divided by each 
service, to include designation for training that must remain 
current or is required for pre-deployment; 2) A description of 
the method required for accomplishing the training; 3) A 
description of the average amount of time required to complete 
the training, including the time spent enforcing the training 
requirements and the required time spent on instructor 
training, if required; 4) The number of times the training is 
required and the duration of time that the training is valid; 
5) A description of the applicability of the individual 
training to the servicemember's primary job performance; 6) A 
description of the total amount of time a servicemember is 
required to complete the non-combat training requirements; and 
7) An identification and description of any negative impact to 
primary job performance that is a result of the non-combat 
training requirements.
    The report shall include recommendations for any non-combat 
training that the Secretary of Defense believes should be 
eliminated. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
but may include a classified annex if required.

Report on reset and sustainment of material handling equipment

    The committee notes the continued efforts of the military 
logistics community to provide vital resources for the 
warfighter. However, the committee is concerned by the lack of 
a comprehensive and appropriately resourced sustainment 
strategy for Material Handling Equipment (MHE) and RT240 Rough 
Terrain Container Handlers (RTCH), despite the Army's inventory 
of roughly 1 million International Standards Organization, or 
ISO, containers in Southwest Asia.
    The committee believes that the incorporation of state-of-
the-art systems that enhance logistical through-put and provide 
greater item unique identification and in-transit visibility of 
assets should be considered with the goal of increasing 
efficiency and reducing fuel requirements. The committee is 
concerned that if left without an overarching strategy, 
expeditionary logistics equipment like the RTCH will continue 
to deteriorate with age.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to provide an assessment no later than February 1, 2017. 
This assessment should include: (1) an inventory of all RTCH 
(RT240 and DV43), to include the number over 10 years old, and 
numbers non-mission capable; (2) the readiness rates of these 
systems and any known block obsolescence issues; (3) any 
divestment plans of obsolete RTCH equipment within the future 
years defense program; (4) a comprehensive and appropriately 
resourced sustainment strategy, beginning in fiscal year 2017, 
to prevent future capability gaps.

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

    The committee remains concerned that fiscal constraints as 
a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 have unnecessarily 
hampered vital investments in restoration and modernization 
(R&M;) accounts. Deferred work and existing backlogs of R&M; 
exacerbate the conditions of our installations, which increases 
risk to the Armed Forces' ability to accomplish their missions, 
meet quality of life standards, and compounds long-term costs.
    Accordingly, the committees directs the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a model of requirements for R&M; funds and 
provide the congressional defense committees with an initial 
model to be delivered in conjunction with the budget submission 
for fiscal year 2018. The R&M; model should address both 
vertical and horizontal infrastructure and include age of 
facilities, miles of roads, miles of utilities, and acreage in 
addition to any other appropriate considerations determined by 
the Secretary. The R&M; model should not rely on prior year 
funding levels to estimate future requirements. Additionally, 
the Secretary should pilot the use of the initial model in 
fiscal years 2017 and 2018, request feedback from installations 
in each of the services on the accuracy and sufficiency of the 
model to reflect the diverse needs of all installations, and 
refine the R&M; model as necessary. Lastly, once the R&M; model 
is complete, the Secretary shall submit a written plan to the 
congressional defense committees detailing how the Department 
will use the model for funding R&M; requirements. The plan 
should include how each military service will resource the 
personnel for carrying out the modeled requirements including, 
but not limited to, contract officer staffing to ensure timely 
use of the funding provided.

Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP

    The committee strongly supports the U.S. Army's Energy 
Security & Sustainability strategy and the use of heat recovery 
technologies, such as combined heat and power (CHP) and waste 
heat to power (WHP), to improve its current and future 
capabilities and enhance mission effectiveness. CHP and WHP 
technologies help make critical infrastructure more resilient, 
and--when interconnected with energy storage systems or onsite 
renewable generation assets, through micro-grid and smart grid 
technologies--can provide standby power during grid outages.
    To reduce risks posed by a vulnerable energy grid, and in 
accordance with Executive Orders 13624 (``Accelerating 
Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency'') and 13693 
(''Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade''), 
the committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
expand deployment of CHP and WHP on military property. The 
committee also directs the DOD to convene a forum to identify 
ways to encourage further use of these technologies on military 
bases to better enhance mission assurance and to leverage the 
use of existing and new renewable energy generation 
investments.

Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces

    The committee notes that the Navy's Coastal Riverine Force 
operates in harbors, rivers, bays, across the littorals and 
ashore, conducting maritime security operations ranging from 
defending high value assets and critical maritime 
infrastructure to conducting offensive combat operations. The 
committee understands that in 2012, the Navy merged Riverine 
Forces and Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces to form the 
Coastal Riverine Force. The committee further understands that 
the Coastal Riverine Force is organized into 2 Groups with 7 
Squadrons--3 homeported on the west coast and 4 homeported on 
the east coast--operating more than 100 boats, from 25-foot 
patrol boats to the new 85-foot Mark VI patrol boat. Coastal 
Riverine Force units have deployed worldwide in recent years to 
Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt among other locations.
    The committee notes that in January 2016, U.S. sailors 
aboard two U.S. riverine patrol craft were detained by Iran's 
Revolutionary Guard. Footage of the incident aired widely in 
the media. According to news reports, a subsequent Navy 
investigation found that several factors may have contributed 
to the vessels' capture including mechanical problems with one 
boat's diesel engines and satellite communications gear, and 
parts shortages, among others. The committee is interested in 
understanding the factors that contributed to the detention of 
these sailors, in particular the material condition of the 
boats and equipment, and steps taken to prevent such incidents 
in the future.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to undertake a comprehensive review of the 
readiness of the Navy's coastal riverine force and to provide a 
briefing on preliminary observations by February 1, 2017 with a 
report to follow to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives to address the 
following elements: (1) what are the current and historical 
readiness status of the Navy's coastal riverine units including 
any trends in reported readiness in personnel, material 
condition of vessels, maintenance, and training and any major 
areas of deficiencies?; (2) what impact, if any, do the above 
identified deficiencies have on maintaining needed warfighting 
capabilities?; (3) to what extent have actions been taken by 
the Navy to address the above identified deficiencies including 
the development of any further plans and identification of 
resource needs to address them?; and (4) any other related 
matters as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General.

Software-based foreign language training and sustainment

    The committee understands that foreign language training, 
including the sustainment of foreign language competencies, is 
an important component of training for many service members and 
Department of Defense (DOD) civilians.
    The committee expects DOD to continue to identify best 
practices, including for United States Special Operations 
Command and defense-related intelligence activities, that 
exploit emerging technology to more effectively integrate 
software-based training with human instruction to deliver 
efficient language training and sustainment.
    As foreign language training best practices are identified, 
the committee encourages DOD to explore opportunities to make 
software-based foreign language training and sustainment 
available to service members and DOD civilians at the lowest 
possible overall cost to minimize capability gaps.

Study on power storage capacity requirement

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 
2017 on the costs and benefits associated with requiring 25 
percent of National Guard and Reserve facilities to have at 
least a 21-day on-site power storage capacity to assist with 
providing support to civil authorities in case of manmade or 
natural disasters.

Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms weapons skills 
        and combat readiness

    The committee recognizes that synthetic training systems 
can enhance small arms weapons skills training effectiveness 
for U.S. military personnel, while reducing direct and indirect 
training time and costs. The committee is aware that by 
leveraging software capabilities, these systems can demonstrate 
that collection and analysis of trainee performance data can 
accelerate warfighter training results, while providing 
resource programmers the ability to assess program fidelity and 
ensure effective test and evaluation metrics are implemented to 
achieve successful, cost-wise weapons training results, 
including live fire proficiency.
    For example, the committee is aware that synthetic small 
arms training systems utilized by Navy commands, including Navy 
Expeditionary Combat Command and Naval Special Warfare Command, 
and at U.S. Army and joint training sites, including the Joint 
Multi-National Training Center under U.S. Army (Europe), can 
leverage data collection and metric analysis to improve 
training efficiency and ensure training effectiveness transfers 
to live fire qualifications and skills sustainment. This 
capability could allow commanders to maintain and track 
individual and squad-level training records, provide trend 
analysis and forecast models to reduce training time and 
accurately determine live fire transfer readiness, enable 
customization to train to multiple proficiency levels and hone 
training as threats evolve, and demonstrate clear and repeated 
live fire transfer proficiency.
    As investments are made in small arms simulator training 
systems to meet warfighter operational objectives and force 
protection requirements, the committee strongly encourages all 
military departments, schools, and commands to appropriately 
adopt more advanced, innovative small arms weapons and crew 
served training systems, such as those described above, that 
are capable of demonstrating consistent and successful live 
fire transfer and combat readiness in cost efficient and time 
effective manner.
    Additionally, the committee supports the Department of 
Defense's continued expansion of the full range of simulation 
training as a cost-effective means by which military units can 
improve tactical decision-making skills through training in 
realistic scenarios otherwise only found in combat operations. 
The committee strongly encourages the Department to continue to 
ensure the most efficient and effective training programs are 
available through a combination of both government-owned and 
operated simulators, as well as simulation support from a 
dedicated commercial activity capable of providing appropriate 
hardware and software updates.

Third party financed energy projects

    Department of Defense (DOD) installations serve as 
platforms from which military forces employ and are critical to 
joint military operations around the world. The committee 
continues to be strongly supportive of the DOD's efforts to 
enter into third party financed power purchase agreements 
(PPAs), which improve combat capability and provide energy 
resiliency for the military services along with the appropriate 
stewardship of taxpayer funding. Projects developed using PPAs 
and third party financing have little to no upfront cost to 
DOD, and the committee supports the adage that any project that 
saves money is money that can otherwise be spent on training 
and readiness.
    The committee recognizes and strongly encourages DOD to 
pursue PPAs that provide electricity to installations at below 
market rates for 25-30 years with the capability for islanded 
operations, ensuring the appropriate inverter functionality is 
included in the PPA agreement. When possible, the committee 
also encourages the inclusion of micro-grids for critical 
assets that enable a more flexible allocation of power on the 
installation which can also improve resiliency and mission 
assurance.
    For example, the committee notes that in Georgia, the 
Marine Corps is using a third party financed energy savings 
performance contract (ESPC) to generate enough renewable 
Electricity on base, through a biomass steam turbine generator, 
to support all of Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany's 
electrical needs. Additionally, the ESPC will include other 
energy conservation measures such as light emitting diode 
lighting, boiler retrofits, and a smart grid to allow for 
automated load shedding, fault location and isolation, and 
utility islanding in the event of a grid outage at Albany. The 
committee recognizes and is supportive of the efforts at Marine 
Corps Logistics Base Albany to maximize the use of resilient 
energy to achieve net-zero installation status and greater 
energy security in their mission to support Marine Corps units 
and the defense industrial base.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes and is strongly 
supportive of the Air Force's Office of Energy Assurance and 
its plans to design cost-competitive energy projects to enhance 
resiliency and notably, has successfully reduced energy 
intensity across installations by over 24 percent since 2013, 
despite utility prices increasing 29 percent since 2003. The 
committee also recognizes and is supportive of the micro-grid 
deployed to the Hawaii Air National Guard Wing to increase 
energy security for its F-22 alert aircraft. Additionally, the 
Air Force is developing a 19 megawatt photovoltaic array at 
Nellis Air Force Base, in addition to a 14 megawatt array that 
started producing power in 2007. The project enables Nellis 
with a substation and feeder line that insulates the base and 
allows continuous operations should the local power grid go 
down. Lastly, natural gas peaking plants at Tinker Air Force 
Base and Warner Robins Air Force Base can be islanded and 
provide the base with energy security during grid outages.
    For the Army, the committee is strongly encouraged by and 
supportive of the Army's largest single renewable energy 
project to date at Fort Hood, Texas. The project is expected to 
save the Army at least $168.0 million over the course of the 
contract, which is a solar and wind project that will have a 
capacity of 65 megawatts and will be micro-grid capable to 
enhance energy security. Other Army projects include a large-
scale renewable solar projects at Redstone Arsenal, Anniston 
Army Depot, and Fort Rucker which represent an 18-fold increase 
in total solar capacity installed in the state of Alabama. 
These projects will purchase energy at or below the costs of 
conventional energy. Additionally, an Army project in Georgia, 
totaling over 90 megawatts led to a six-fold increase in 
photovoltaic capacity for the state.
    Historically, DOD had frequently taken an approach to 
improving grid resiliency that entailed placing hundreds of 
backup diesel generators at the point of load. Instead, the 
committee strongly encourages DOD to pursue alternative and 
renewable energy projects which have capability, cost, and 
reliability benefits that provide additional resiliency and 
flexibility to route power during grid outages.
    Accordingly, the committee continues to strongly encourage 
DOD to continue to use PPAs and other authorities to take full 
advantage of private sector financing for renewable energy 
projects that improve energy resiliency, increase mission 
assurance, and offer cost savings.

Third party financed energy savings performance contracts

    The committee strongly supports and encourages the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) continued approach of leveraging 
third party financing mechanisms for large-scale energy 
projects. The committee has also observed the positive benefits 
of DOD increasing use of private sector financing and expertise 
for energy projects that support DOD infrastructure.
    In particular, the committee has been encouraged by the 
Department's continued use of Energy Savings Performance 
Contracts (ESPCs) which guarantee energy savings to pay for the 
investment in energy-related equipment.
    The committee also recognizes the continued importance of 
appropriate oversight with respect to third-party financed 
energy projects. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2017 
with a review of: (1) The extent of the deferred maintenance 
backlog across DOD buildings and facilities, as well as the 
quality of life and financial impact of such continued deferral 
and backlog; (2) The extent to which, if any, the DOD budget is 
sufficient to address the deferred installation maintenance 
backlog; (3) The extent to which, if any, DOD would have 
otherwise been able to address large-scale energy projects 
without the availability of third-party financing mechanisms; 
and (4) The total amount of investment and costs DOD has 
avoided since 2009 by leveraging third-party financing 
mechanisms compared to if DOD used direct appropriations to 
acquire large-scale renewable energy projects.

Warfighter technology

    The committee is aware of the work being done by the 
Warfighter Technology directorate in improving the protection, 
survivability, mobility and combat effectiveness of our 
Nation's Army. Key to these efforts is continued research in 
areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body armor, fibers to 
make uniforms more fire resistant, lightweight structures for 
advanced shelters are all examples of tangible benefits to the 
Soldier.
    The Committee notes that the FY17 President's Budget 
decreased funding for the Warfighter Technology Directorate by 
roughly $2 million as compared to FY16 levels. In order to 
ensure the Army remains at the cutting edge of technology in 
these critical areas, the Committee urges the Army to ensure 
that proper resources are available for this research.
    The Committee is aware there is a clear need and future 
requirements to broaden this effort to the development of 
lightweight multifunctional materials and systems integration 
in the areas of (1) soldier protection, and (2) expeditionary 
basing, collective protection, and sustainment.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                      Subtitle A--Active Personnel

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..........................................     475,000    460,000         460,000          0         -15,000
Navy..........................................     329,200    322,900         322,900          0          -6,300
Marine Corps..................................     184,000    182,000         182,000          0          -2,000
Air Force.....................................     320,715    317,000         317,000          0          -3,715
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................   1,308,915  1,281,900       1,281,900          0         -27,015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................     342,000    335,000         335,000          0          -7,000
Army Reserve..................................     198,000    195,000         195,000          0          -3,000
Navy Reserve..................................      57,400     58,000          58,000          0            +600
Marine Corps Reserve..........................      38,900     38,500          38,500          0            -400
Air National Guard............................     105,500    105,700         105,700          0            +200
Air Force Reserve.............................      69,200     69,000          69,000          0            -200
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................     811,000    801,200         801,200          0          -9,800
Coast Guard Reserve...........................       7,000      7,000           7,000          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      30,770     30,155          30,155          0            -615
Army Reserve..................................      16,261     16,261          16,261          0               0
Navy Reserve..................................       9,934      9,955           9,955          0             +21
Marine Corps Reserve..........................       2,260      2,261           2,261          0              +1
Air National Guard............................      14,748     14,764          14,764          0             +16
Air Force Reserve.............................       3,032      2,955           2,955          0             -77
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      77,005     76,351          76,351          0            -654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components 
of the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2017, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      26,099     25,507          25,507          0            -592
Army Reserve..................................       7,395      7,570           7,570          0            +175
Air National Guard............................      22,104     22,103          22,103          0              -1
Air Force Reserve.............................       9,814     10,061          10,061          0            +247
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      65,412     65,241          65,241          0            -171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provision also authorizes variance from the end 
strengths described above in accordance with the variance 
authorities found in subsections (f)(1) and (g)(1)(B) of 
section 115 of title 10, United States Code.
Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2017, 
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................       1,600      1,600           1,600          0               0
Air National Guard............................         350        350             350          0               0
Army Reserve..................................         595        420             420          0            -175
Air Force Reserve.............................          90         90              90          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................       2,635      2,460           2,460          0            -175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2017, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      17,000     17,000          17,000          0               0
Army Reserve..................................      13,000     13,000          13,000          0               0
Navy Reserve..................................       6,200      6,200           6,200          0               0
Marine Corps Reserve..........................       3,000      3,000           3,000          0               0
Air National Guard............................      16,000     16,000          16,000          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................      14,000     14,000          14,000          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      69,200     69,200          69,200          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical corrections to annual authorization for personnel strengths 
        (sec. 416)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical correction to section 115 of title 10, United States 
Code.

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

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

                              Budget Items


Military personnel funding changes

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Military Personnel Underexecution.....................            -880.5
Rejection of Department of Defense Budgeted Retired               -400.0
 Reforms..............................................
Rejection of Air Force Pilot Bonus Increase for All                 -2.5
 Platforms............................................
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act Reforms......            +100.0
Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment...............             -0.73
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................         -1,183.73
 

    The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military 
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1183.73 million. This 
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $880.45 million to reflect 
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment 
of the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction 
of $400 million to account for the rejection of a Department of 
Defense legislative proposal to change the vesting date for 
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions from two years of 
service to five and other matters; (3) A reduction of $2.5 
million for the rejection of an Air Force proposal to increase 
the maximum aviation continuation bonus from $25,000 from 
$35,000 for all platforms; (4) An increase of $100 million to 
support reforms to the Defense Officer Personnel Management 
Act; (5) An adjustment of $0.73 million to reflect the foreign 
currency fluctuation.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general and flag 
        officers (sec. 501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 525a to title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
authorized distribution of general and flag officers for the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, effective December 31, 
2017. The provision would require a 25 percent reduction in the 
number of general and flag officers in the military 
departments. The provision would also sunset the authorized 
distribution of general and flag officers in section 525 of 
title 10, after December 31, 2017.
    The provision would add a new section 526a, to title 10, 
United States Code, to limit the number of general and flag 
officers on Active Duty in the military departments and to 
exclude from those limits the specified number of general and 
flag officers serving in joint duty assignments. The provision 
would require a 25 percent reduction in the number of general 
and flag officers in the military departments and the joint 
pool. The provision would also sunset the authorized 
distribution of general and flag officers in section 526 of 
title 10, after December 31, 2017.
    The provision would add a new section 12004a, to title 10, 
United States Code, to establish the authorized distribution of 
general and flag officers in an active status in the reserve 
component, effective December 31, 2017. The provision would 
require a 25 percent reduction in the number of general and 
flag officers in active status in the reserve component, 
including general officers of the National Guard of the States 
and territories and general officers serving in the National 
Guard Bureau, but excluding officers serving as adjutants 
general or assistant adjutants general of a state. The 
provision would also sunset the authorized distribution of 
general and flag officers in section 12004 of title 10, after 
December 31, 2017.
Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag officer grade for 
        various positions in the Armed Forces (sec. 502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend or 
repeal various statutory specifications in title 10, United 
States Code, to remove the requirement that an officer serving 
must hold a specified general or flag officer grade for certain 
positions in the Armed Forces. The Committee determined that in 
order to effectively manage the reduction in the number of 
general and flag officers prescribed elsewhere in this Act, 
that the Secretary of Defense must be given the flexibility to 
assign appropriate officer grades to positions. The provision 
would not prohibit the position from being filled by an officer 
with the same, or a higher, or lower grade than the law 
currently requires.
Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables (sec. 503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 523(a) and 12011(a) of title 10, United States Code, 
to remove the limitations on the total number of commissioned 
officers authorized to serve on Active Duty or on full-time 
reserve component duty in the pay grades of O-4 through O-6 as 
of the end of the fiscal year for fiscal years 2017 through 
2021. The committee determined that providing relief from 
statutory caps on the numbers of officers of the active and 
reserve components serving in pay grades from O-4 to O-6, for a 
5-year trial period, would allow the secretaries of the 
military departments to adjust the shape of their officer corps 
to affect talent management-based promotion systems and more 
quickly adapt to changing war fighting requirements and 
available talent supply.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, describing the use of this 
authority, the specific categories of adjustments in control 
grades and the number and percentages of such adjustments, and 
an assessment of the impact of the authority as implemented on 
the desired officer grade composition of the military 
departments. The report shall specifically address the use of 
this authority for military intelligence officers, foreign area 
specialists, judge advocates with a military justice skill 
identifier, and officers with expertise in cyber matters. The 
report will reflect the officer control grade composition on 
the last day of the fiscal year, and shall be submitted 
annually not later than October 31.
    The committee recognizes the value of flexibility in 
personnel authorities, yet remains concerned that the authority 
under this section must not be used to promote ``grade creep'' 
that bloats senior officer ranks.
Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or advanced 
        education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer 
        (sec. 504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 533 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to credit an applicant for an original 
appointment in a commissioned grade with an amount of 
constructive credit limited to the amount required for an 
original appointment in the grade of colonel in the Army, Air 
Force, or Marine Corps, or in the grade of captain in the Navy. 
The provision would authorize the secretary concerned to award 
constructive credit for leadership experience, professional 
credentials, and technical expertise to directly commission 
officers up to the grade of O-6. The authorities created by 
this provision would be similar to existing authorities used to 
commission professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and 
chaplains. The authorities would also extend to branches, 
career fields, and occupational specialties that may be 
designated by the services as having technical track status. It 
would also enhance the ability to rapidly assess highly 
qualified personnel for emergent warfighting areas such as 
cyber.
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit 
        be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an 
officer promotion board to recommend Active-Duty officers of 
particular merit to be placed at the top of the promotion list.
Promotion eligibility period for officers whose confirmation of 
        appointment is delayed due to nonavailability to the Senate of 
        probative information under control of non-Department of 
        Defense agencies (sec. 506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 629(c) of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
the period for promotion eligibility of an officer would not 
expire during the period when the Senate is unable to obtain 
information necessary to give its advice and consent to the 
appointment concerned because the information is under control 
of a department or agency of the federal government other than 
the Department of Defense.
Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 664 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
qualifying period for joint duty assignments from 3 years to 
not less than 2 years. The proposal would repeal the average 
tour length requirement and repeal the authority for shorter 
tour lengths for officers initially assigned to critical 
occupational specialties.
    The committee is concerned that joint duty assignments must 
provide an adequate opportunity for officers to gain meaningful 
experience with and exposure to joint requirements. The 
committee determined that a period of not less than 2 years is 
an acceptable period of time to achieve this desired result. In 
addition to clarifying that a qualifying joint tour length must 
be not less than 2 years it allows officers additional time to 
attain service-specific warfare professional development 
experience.
Modification of definitions relating to joint officer management (sec. 
        508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 668 of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
definitions of joint matters and joint duty assignment for the 
purpose of joint officer management. The provision would also 
repeal the definition of critical occupational specialty.
Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without regard to 
        requirement for retirement for years of service (sec. 509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 36 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to allow officers in a grade above O-4 who 
are serving in military occupational specialties designated by 
the secretary to remain on Active Duty for up to 40 years of 
active service.
Extension of force management authorities allowing enhanced flexibility 
        for officer personnel management (sec. 510)
    The committee recommends a provision that would:
          (a) amend section 4403(i) of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
        484) to extend Temporary Early Retirement Authority 
        through December 31, 2025;
          (b) amend section 638a(a)(2) of title 10, United 
        States Code, to extend through December 31, 2025 
        authority for service secretaries to manage authorized 
        officer personnel strength by shortening the period of 
        continuation of service by officers on Active Duty, to 
        authorize involuntary early retirement for certain 
        officers on Active Duty, and to consider officers for 
        involuntary discharge who are not eligible for 
        retirement;
          (c) amend section 1175a(k)(1) of title 10, United 
        States Code to extend through December 31, 2025 
        authority to provide voluntary separation pay and 
        benefits; and
          (d) amend section 1370(a)(2)(F) of title 10, United 
        States Code to extend through fiscal year 2025, 
        authority for early retirement of up to 4 percent of 
        the authorized Active-Duty strength of officers in the 
        grades of O-5 and O-6 without reduction in grade, in 
        each fiscal year.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of service of Vice 
        Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10505(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to extend the term of office 
of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau for up to 90 
days to provide for the orderly transition of officers 
appointed to the positions of the Chief and the Vice Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau.
Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered 
        for selection for promotion (sec. 522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion 
consideration for reserve component officers in a non-
participatory (membership points only) status. Currently, 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to 
be considered for promotion to the next higher grade. This 
includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve Active 
Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in the 
Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who remain 
eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively 
participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in 
which they are receiving membership only points for Reserve 
credit. Under current law, some individuals assigned to the 
Individual Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve 
component upon their second deferral for promotion because they 
are considered to have twice failed for promotion. This 
provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to 
remove individuals from promotion consideration during a period 
when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow 
the services to retain servicemembers with significant military 
training as well as civilian technical and professional skills 
that could contribute to their potential for selection for 
promotion should the individual return to active participation 
in military service.
Rights and protections available to military technicians (sec. 523)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify the 
employment rights and protections of military technicians such 
that when a military technician files an appeal of a personnel 
action that concerns an activity that occurs while the member 
is in a military status or concerns fitness for duty in the 
reserve components, current statutory limitations concerning 
such appeals will continue to apply. With respect to an appeal 
concerning any other activity occurring while the member is in 
a civilian status, the provisions of section 717 of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) shall apply.
Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs for the 
        National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10219(g) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority for suicide prevention and resilience programs for 
the National Guard and Reserves until October 1, 2022.
Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard technicians 
        performing Active Guard and Reserve duty (sec. 525)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify that 
the provision that grants military leave to individuals 
appointed to the civil service does not apply to members of the 
Active Guard and Reserve, just as it does not apply to members 
on Active Duty.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for standards and 
        qualifications for military specialties within the Armed Forces 
        (sec. 531)
    The Committee recommends a provision that would vest in the 
Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility 
for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria, 
standards, and qualifications for military specialty codes 
within that Armed Force. The Secretary of Defense will still 
retain oversight authority.
Leave matters (sec. 532)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize up to 
6 weeks of uncharged leave that may be taken by a servicemember 
who is the primary caregiver in the case of the birth of a 
child or the adoption of a child. In the case of leave taken 
following the the birth of a child, the availability of primary 
caregiver leave would commence after completion of medical 
convalescent leave resulting from the birth of such child.
    The provision would also increase the amount of uncharged 
leave authorized for a secondary caregiver in the case of the 
birth of a child or the adoption of child. The provision would 
authorize 21 days of uncharged leave for a birth parent or an 
adoptive parent who is the secondary caregiver. The provision 
would repeal subsections of section 701 relating to spouse and 
adoption leave as obsolete.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe in regulation definitions of eligible primary and 
secondary caregivers for the purposes of this benefit, and to 
establish regulations for requesting and approving uncharged 
leave associated with births to a military family, and with 
adoptions by a military family, and would allow a military 
member to accept a 1-week extension of a servicemember's 
military service obligation for every week of such leave 
approved and taken. The implementing regulations would 
authorize the secretary concerned to waive service obligation 
extensions related to this leave as an incentive for re-
enlistments.
    The provision would also create a new section 704a of title 
10, United States Code, that would prohibit leave to be 
authorized, granted or assigned, including uncharged leave, 
unless expressly authorized by law. The committee considers 
this provision necessary to clarify that military leave is 
established by law and may not be created without express 
congressional authority.
Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in connection with 
        leave canceled due to contingency operations (sec. 533)
    The committee recommends a provision that would relocate 
the authority to reimburse members of the Armed Force for 
expenses incurred in connection with leave cancelled due to 
contingency operations from section 453 of title 37, United 
States Code, to title 10, United States Code.

Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired list (sec. 534)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1210 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
maximum tenure for servicemembers placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL), due to an injury or illness 
eligible for disability retirement, from 5 years to 3 years. 
The committee notes that this provision addresses a 
recommendation from the Government Accountability Office in 
2009 for Congress to shorten the maximum tenure for placement 
on the TDRL.

Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings preventing 
        members of the Armed Forces from carrying out otherwise lawful 
        duties based on member gender (sec. 535)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit a 
military commission established under chapter 47A of title 10, 
United States Code, from acting by order, ruling, finding, or 
otherwise that a member of the Armed Forces may not perform 
duties otherwise lawfully assigned if the prohibition is based 
solely on the gender of the servicemember. The provision would 
also vacate any such order issued before the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Board for the Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Board 
        matters (sec. 536)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that a 
board convened to consider a claim for correction of military 
records by a former servicemember (1) who had been deployed in 
support of contingency operation and who was subsequently 
diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
or traumatic brain injury (TBI), or (2) who was diagnosed while 
serving in the military as experiencing a mental health 
disorder include a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a 
physician with training on mental health issues connected with 
PTSD or TBI. The proposal would require the military department 
concerned, or the Department of Homeland Security, to make 
available to the public on an Internet website information 
regarding claims considered by the service board for correction 
of military records in a calendar quarter.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would modify 
section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to require 
similar information be made available to the public on an 
Internet website information regarding claims considered by the 
service discharge review boards in a calendar quarter.
    The committee endorses the supplemental guidance issued by 
former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on September 3, 2014, 
to military boards for correction of military/Naval records 
considering discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming 
PTSD. This guidance requires the boards to give liberal 
consideration to petitions for changes in characterization of 
service to service treatment record entries which document one 
or more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or 
related conditions. The committee directs that similar guidance 
be provided to military discharge review boards and that in 
cases where PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably 
determined to have existed at the time of discharge, all boards 
will consider those conditions as potential mitigating factors 
for any misconduct that resulted in a discharge less than an 
honorable discharge.

Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to qualifications 
        for enlistment in the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
        (sec. 537)

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

       Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters


                          Part I--Retaliation


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations that would 
require that the results of an investigation of a retaliation 
complaint by a member of the Armed Forces be reported to the 
member who initiated the complaint. The report would inform the 
member whether the complaint was substantiated, 
unsubstantiated, or dismissed. The provision would also require 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe similar 
regulations to report on retaliation complaints by a member of 
the Coast Guard.

Training for Department of Defense personnel on sexual assault trauma 
        in individuals claiming retaliation in connection with reports 
        of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 542)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe training on the nature and 
consequences of sexual assault trauma to individuals in the 
Department of Defense who investigate claims of retaliation.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to 
require the annual report on sexual assault and response 
efforts to include information on complaints of retaliation in 
connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent and 
        respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual 
        assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 544)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office of the Department 
of Defense to establish and issue metrics to be used by the 
military departments to evaluate the efforts of the Armed 
Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in connection with 
reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

                Part II--Other Military Justice Matters


Discretionary authority for military judges to designate an individual 
        to assume the rights of the victim of an offense under the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice when the victim is a minor, 
        incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b(c) of title 10, United States Code (Article 6b(c), 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize military 
judges to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is 
appropriate to appoint an individual to assume the victim's 
rights in all cases under the UCMJ in which the victim of an 
offense is under 18 years of age (unless the victim is a member 
of the Armed Forces) or is incompetent, incapacitated, or 
deceased. The proposal would bring Article 6b(c), UCMJ, in line 
with the discretion federal civilian judges have to appoint an 
individual to assume the victim's rights under the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. 3771). The proposal would help 
protect minors in those situations where they are mature enough 
to communicate their desires themselves or through counsel. The 
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 
upon which the service rules are based, presume the competency 
of minors to exercise their rights, unless or until they 
demonstrate they are not able to do so.

Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of victims under the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 547)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize victims 
to file pleadings as a real party in interest when the 
Government files appellate pleadings implicating the victim's 
rights relating to Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 412, 
relating to the admission of evidence regarding a victim's 
sexual background; MRE 513, relating to the psychotherapist-
patient privilege; or MRE 514, relating to the victim advocate-
patient privilege. The provision would also amend section 806b 
of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the UCMJ) to 
afford a victim with the right to reasonable, accurate, and 
timely notice of any appellate matters.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
service secretaries to carry out a program to ensure that trial 
and defense counsel detailed to prosecute or defend a court-
martial have sufficient experience and knowledge to effectively 
prosecute or defend the case, or that there is adequate 
supervision and oversight of the trial counsel and the defense 
counsel to ensure effective prosecution and defense in the 
court-martial. The provision would also require service 
secretaries to establish and use a system of skill identifiers 
to identify judge advocates with skill and experience in 
military justice proceedings to identify judge advocates to 
provide supervision and oversight of less experienced judge 
advocates prosecuting and defending in military courts-martial.
    The committee is concerned that junior judge advocates may 
be detailed as trial counsel or defense counsel in complex 
cases where the judge advocate does not have the skill and 
experience to effectively address the complex issues in the 
case. In those cases where the judge advocate does not have the 
requisite skill or experience, the committee expects the 
service secretaries, acting through their Judge Advocates 
General, or Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant in the case 
of the Marine Corps, to provide adequate supervision and 
oversight to ensure that the case is professionally and 
competently prosecuted and defended.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of each military department to conduct a 5 year pilot 
program to assess the feasibility and advisability of a career 
military justice litigation track for judge advocates in the 
Armed Forces. The pilot programs would include a military 
justice career track that leads to senior judge advocates with 
military justice expertise in prosecuting and defending complex 
cases in military courts-martial. The provision would use 
authority provided elsewhere in this Act to suspend limitations 
on the number of certain senior commissioned officers on active 
duty, under section 532(a) of title 10, United States Code. The 
provision would require the use of skill identifiers to 
identify judge advocates participating in the pilot programs. 
The provision would also require promotion boards to give the 
same opportunity for promotion as all other judge advocates 
being considered for promotion.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit reports on the pilot programs not later than 4 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

Modification of definition of sexual harassment for purposes of 
        investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding 
        officers (sec. 550)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1561(i) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
definition of sexual harassment. The committee is concerned 
that the existing definition of sexual harassment has caused 
the military services to consider sexual harassment as a 
violation of equal opportunity policy instead of an adverse 
behavior that data have demonstrated is on the spectrum of 
behavior that can contribute to an increase in the incidence of 
sexual assault.

Extension and clarification of annual reports regarding sexual assault 
        involving members of the armed forces (sec. 551)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that would extend 
the requirement for the annual report on sexual assault in the 
military under that section through February, 2025, and require 
the reports to be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 
March 31 each year. The provision would also clarify the scope 
of sexual assaults covered by the report to include all 
reported sexual assaults, regardless of the age of the offender 
or victim or the relationship status between the offender and 
victim, including, at a minimum, all sexual assault reports 
received by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, 
or equivalent, and the Family Advocacy Program, or equivalent, 
of each Armed Force.

Expansion of authority to execute certain military instruments (sec. 
        552)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1044d of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a 
person authorized to act as a notary under section 1044a of 
title 10, United States Code, or a state-licensed notary 
employed by a military department or the Coast Guard, who is 
supervised by a military legal assistance counsel, to notarize 
military testamentary instruments. The provision would also 
amend section 1044a(b) to authorize all civilian paralegals 
serving at military legal assistance offices, supervised by a 
military legal assistance counsel, to act as a notary.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 942(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code (Article 
142(b)(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to modify 
the terms of two civilian judges of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces (``the court'') to avoid 
disruption that may occur to the operations of the court when 
two judicial vacancies occur simultaneously.
    The provision would modify the daily rate of compensation 
for senior judges performing judicial duties with the court so 
that they would be paid the difference between the pay of a 
judge of the court and their federal retired pay, consistent 
with the process employed by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia and the United States Bankruptcy 
Courts.
    The provision would authorize the judges of the court to 
administer oaths in a similar manner as other federal judges.
    The provision would repeal the provision in article 
142(b)(3) that precludes more than three judges of the court 
from being from the same political party. The party balance 
requirement was included in the original Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, which established the Court of Military 
Appeals (as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was 
originally named) as a new three-judge Court. The committee has 
determined that the party balance requirement has outlived its 
usefulness. It does not appear that any other federal court is 
subject to a party balance requirement.

         Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition


Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education 
        (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the 
tuition assistant program for off-duty training and education 
to education programs likely to contribute to the professional 
development of the servicemember. The committee notes that this 
provision was recommended in the final report of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. The 
committee strongly recommends this limit as essential to good 
stewardship of the tuition assistance program.
    The committee also notes that this amendment preserves the 
important distinction between off-duty education programs 
funded by tuition assistance that primarily benefit 
professional development of service members while currently 
serving in the Armed Forces and programs addressed elsewhere in 
this Act that support the transition to civilian life by 
providing access to civilian credentials based on military 
training and experience.

Modification of program to assist members of the Armed Forces in 
        obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to include within 
the program to assist members in obtaining professional 
credentials those credentials that were acquired during 
military service, but which were not necessarily obtained 
incident to the performance of their military duties. The 
provision would also eliminate the requirement that 
credentialing programs be accredited by third party 
accreditation bodies, and instead would require that 
credentialing programs meet certain other quality assurance 
benchmarks.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to grant access to all Department of 
Defense installations any institution of higher education that 
has a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Department for the purposes of student 
advising and support services.

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker 
        Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge or 
        release from the Armed Forces (sec. 564)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to consult, and enter into a memorandum of 
understanding, with the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
afford a priority in the processing of applications for 
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC) by 
members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing separation, 
discharge or release from the Armed forces. The provision would 
require adjudication of such applications not later than 14 
days after the application is submitted, unless an appeal or 
waiver applies, or if other documentation is required. The 
priority for separating servicemembers shall commence not later 
than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The provision also 
requires a report on the implementation of this provision one 
year after enactment of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the memorandum of 
understanding required under this provision should provide, to 
the greatest extent practicable, that the Transportation Safety 
Administration (TSA) accept validated security clearance 
information from the Department of Defense, including the 
National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC), to meet the 
expeditious processing of applications required under this 
provision. The committee understands that the Department of 
Defense's security clearance checks meet or exceed the 
requirements currently required and conducted by the TSA.
    The committee is yet again disappointed that the Department 
of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security have failed 
to take necessary action to implement priority processing of 
TWIC applications for transitioning servicemembers who are 
qualified and motivated to serve in the maritime industry. The 
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92) expressed 
the disappointment of conferees in the lack of progress in 
providing the prioritized treatment of such applications. The 
committee expects the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Homeland Security to now work to implement the priority 
required by this provision, and without further delay.

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


Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 
        benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and 
        Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted 
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a) 
using the formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398), for continuation of Department of Defense 
assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible 
dependents with severe disabilities.

Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573)

    The committee recommends a provision that would: 1) amend 
sections 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(I), 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)(bb), and 
7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(IV) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (most recently amended by Public Law 114-95) to: 1) 
make a technical correction to the current statute to prevent 
the inadvertent disqualification of some local school districts 
from the Impact Aid heavily impacted program whose boundaries 
are within the perimeter of military installations; 2) provide 
additional time to collect data on the effects to the Impact 
Aid heavily impacted program; and 3) adjust eligibility 
criteria to meet congressional intent.

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition and 
        support of military dependent students to local educational 
        agencies (sec. 574)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 547(c)(3) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (20 U.S.C. 7703b note) 
to extend the authorities relating to transition and support of 
military dependent students to local educational agencies from 
September 30, 2016, to September 30, 2017. The provision would 
also require the administration to submit detailed budget 
justification information with any annual budget request that 
includes a request for the future extension of these 
authorities.

Comptroller General of the United States analysis of unsatisfactory 
        conditions and overcrowding at public schools on military 
        installations (sec. 575)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, 
within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, which 
provides an analysis of the condition and capacity of public 
schools on military installations. The provision would require 
the analysis to include schools omitted from the July 2011 
Department of Defense analysis of such schools.

Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation assistance to members 
        of the Armed Forces and their families (sec. 576)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1056 of title 10, United States Code, to permit 
enhanced flexibility in giving relocation assistance to members 
of the Armed Forces and their families. The provision would 
allow the Department of Defense to adapt the delivery of 
relocation assistance to meet the evolving needs of military 
servicemembers and their families by leveraging technology to 
improve access, efficiency, and responsiveness of the 
relocation assistance program, especially in situations where 
servicemembers reside overseas or away from a military 
installation with a relocation assistance program. Finally, the 
provision would establish the position of Program Manager of 
Military Relocation Assistance in the office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military families and homes 
        (sec. 577)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
prescribe regulations to ensure that the family advocacy 
program office at a military installation to which a member of 
the Armed Forces is assigned is provided an immediate report of 
credible information obtained by any individual in the chain of 
command of the servicemember, that a child in the family or 
home of the servicemember has suffered an incident of child 
abuse. The provision would require a similar report by any 
member of the Armed Forces in a profession described by 
subsection 226(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 
U.S.C. 13031) who has reason to suspect that a child in the 
family or home of a servicemember has suffered an incident of 
child abuse.

Background checks for employees of agencies and schools providing 
        elementary and secondary education for Department of Defense 
        dependents (sec. 578)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
certain local educational agencies receiving impact aid under 
subchapter VII of chapter 70 of title 20, United States Code, 
and each Department of Defense (DOD) domestic dependent 
elementary and secondary school, within 2 years of enactment of 
this Act, to establish policies and procedures requiring a 
criminal background check for each school employee of the 
agency or school. Additionally, this provision would: (1) 
prohibit the employment of a school employee at the agency or 
school if the employee refuses to consent to a criminal 
background check, makes a false statement in connection with a 
criminal background check, or has a conviction for certain 
specific felonies; (2) require periodic updates of background 
checks in accordance with policies established by local 
educational agencies or DOD domestic schools; (3) authorize a 
school employee, upon request, to receive a copy of the 
criminal background check, and the employee would have a right 
to appeal the accuracy and completeness of the background 
check; and (4) authorize a local educational agency or school 
to share the results of a criminal background check with 
another educational agency considering an employee for 
employment. Finally, the provision would authorize certain 
federal and state officials to charge reasonable fees for 
conducting a criminal background check not to exceed the actual 
costs for processing and administering the background check.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide financial or non-monetary 
support to qualified non-profit organizations to assist those 
organizations in carrying out programs to support the 
attendance of children of military families at a camp or camp-
like setting.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on the effectiveness of each Exceptional 
Family Member Program of the Armed Forces.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1411 of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 
to abolish the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education.

                   Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards


Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles S. Kettles for 
        acts of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 586)

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of 
Honor to Charles S. Kettles, for acts of valor on May 15, 1967, 
during the Vietnam War, while as Flight Commander in the United 
States Army, 176th Aviation Company, 14th Aviation Battalion, 
Task Force Oregon, Republic of Vietnam.

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose for 
        action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 587)

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of 
Honor to Gary M. Rose, for acts of valor from September 11 
through 14, 1970, during the Vietnam War, while a member of the 
United States Army, Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Studies 
and Observation Group (MACVSOG).

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Chaplain 
        (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor 
        during World War II (sec. 588)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service 
Cross to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for 
acts of valor while interned as a prisoner of war by Japan, 
from December 30, 1941 to September 7, 1944.

Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, United States 
        Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589)

    The committee recommends a provision that would 
posthumously advance Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, United 
States Air Force, to the rank of brigadier general on the 
retired list of the United States Air Force. Colonel Day's 
benefits would not be affected by this action.

          Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters


Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female citizens and 
        persons (sec. 591)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Selective Service Act (Public Law 65-12) to include women in 
the requirement to register for selective service, to the same 
extent men are currently required, beginning January 1, 2018. 
The committee notes that the ban of females serving in ground 
combat units has been lifted by the Department of Defense, and 
as such, there is no further justification to apply the 
selective service act to males only.

Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense Acquisition Corps 
        (sec. 592)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 1725 to title 10, United States Code, to establish 
positions known as ``Senior Military Acquisition Advisors'' in 
the Defense Acquisition Corps. The provision would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish in the Defense 
Acquisition Corps positions to be known as ``Senior Military 
Acquisition Advisors'''. Senior Military Acquisition Advisors 
will be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate. Eligible officers include officers in 
the grade of colonel or captain in the Navy, with extensive 
defense acquisition experience, and who are eligible for 
retirement. Senior Military Acquisition Advisors will be 
authorized to remain in service in support of their Service 
Acquisition Executive and be assigned as an adjunct professor 
at the Defense Acquisition University.
    Senior Military Acquisition Advisors would be competitively 
selected and would provide senior level acquisition expertise 
to the Service Acquisition Executive of their military 
department for the remainder of their career. An officer who is 
continued on active duty under this program is not eligible for 
consideration for selection for promotion. A Senior Military 
Acquisition Advisor will serve no longer than a 5-year term. 
When a Senior Military Acquisition Advisor retires with a 
minimum of 3 years of service, the officer may, at the 
discretion of the President, be retired as a brigadier general 
or rear admiral (lower half), but without increase in retired 
pay or other compensation by reason of retirement of an officer 
in the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half).

Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine Corps in 
        integrating women into military occupational specialties and 
        units recently opened to women (sec. 593)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
report to be delivered to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Chief of 
Staff of the Army, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the 
Commander of the United States Special Operations Command 
annually on April 1, 2017 and each year thereafter through 2021 
on the progress of integrating women into military occupational 
specialties and units recently opened to women.
    Elements of the report shall include: (1) The status of 
gender-neutral standards throughout the Entry Level Training 
continuum; (2) The propensity of applicants to apply for and 
access into newly-opened ground combat programs, by gender and 
program; (3) Success rates in Initial Screening Tests and 
Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Classification Standards 
for newly-opened ground combat military occupational 
specialties, by gender; (4) Attrition rates and causes of 
attrition throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by 
gender and military occupational specialty; (5) 
Reclassification rates and causes of reclassification 
throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by gender and 
military occupational specialty; (6) Injury rates and causes of 
injury throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by gender 
and military occupational specialty; (7) Injury rates and 
nondeployability rates in newly-opened ground combat military 
occupational specialties, by gender and military occupational 
specialty; (8) A comparative analysis of injury rates, causes 
of injury, and nondeployability rates in similar military 
occupational specialties of allied countries, including 
Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, and a 
comparative analysis of the mitigation factors used by the 
United States and such countries; (9) Lateral move approval 
rates into newly opened military occupational specialties, by 
gender and military occupational specialty; (10) Reenlistment 
and retention rates in newly-opened ground combat military 
occupational specialties, by gender and military occupational 
specialty; (11) Promotion rates in newly-opened ground combat 
military occupational specialties, by grade and gender; and 
(12) Actions taken to address matters relating to equipment 
sizing and supply, and facilities, in connection with the 
implementation by such Armed Forces.

Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces for women in 
        combat arms units (sec. 594)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a description of the career 
progression track for entry level and laterally moved female 
service members both officer and enlisted of each Armed Force 
for positions that have been opened as a result of the December 
3, 2015, decision by the Secretary to open all previously 
closed military occupations to women.

Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States Air Force 
        Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 9337 of title 10, United States Code, that requires a 
chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy appointed by 
the President. The section is not required because the Air 
Force and the other military departments already assign 
chaplains to the service academies under existing service 
personnel assignment procedures.

Extension of limitation on reduction in number of military and civilian 
        personnel assigned to duty with service review agencies (sec. 
        596)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1559 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
limitation on reducing the number of military and civilian 
personnel assigned to duty with the service review agencies 
through December 31, 2019.
    The committee determined that the service review agencies 
must continue to be staffed at a level to accommodate 
expeditious review of cases and to reduce backlog. The 
committee notes that recent changes to eligibility for service 
record and discharge reviews may have increased the number of 
former servicemembers seeking review, particularly for members 
who were separated for misconduct that may be attributed to the 
effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, whether or not 
diagnosed at the time of the misconduct, and for members 
separated for homosexual conduct prior to the repeal of ``Don't 
Ask Don't Tell''. The service review agencies must continue to 
be staffed with an adequate number of personnel to perform 
their important work.

                       Items of Special Interest


Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education

    The committee believes that Joint Professional Military 
Education (JPME) is a key component of growing joint-qualified 
officers, and in developing leaders capable of planning, 
fighting, and winning tomorrow's wars. The committee also 
believes, however, that the delivery of JPME, and Professional 
Military Education (PME) provided by the military services, can 
be improved. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to review the delivery of Joint Professional Military 
Education in the military services, including an assessment of: 
(1) the current statutory and regulatory framework authorizing, 
regulating, and potentially restricting development of better 
methods and models of delivering JPME; (2) the curricula of 
JPME and PME, and whether they are adequately preparing 
tomorrow's leaders; (3) the quality of faculty, both military 
and civilian; (4) whether institutions that deliver JPME and 
PME afford faculty sufficient academic freedoms and career 
progression opportunities to attract and retain talented 
instructors; (5) whether any JPME or PME courses, programs, or 
schools should be added or eliminated; and (6) any other aspect 
of JPME or PME that the Secretary deems appropriate. The 
Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no 
later than April 1, 2017, on the results of this review.

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

    Unmanned systems have become an integral part of the 
Department of Defense's warfighting capabilities as 
demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent years, much 
focus has been on the Air Force and the Army regarding their 
use of unmanned aerial systems. However, the Navy is also 
rapidly increasing its use of unmanned systems and has recently 
established a deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for 
unmanned systems. The Navy's use of unmanned systems not just 
in the air, but also on the sea and undersea, creates unique 
challenges that must be addressed. As the Secretary of the Navy 
has noted, unmanned systems are inherently different from their 
manned counterparts, and policies and procedures must be in 
place for the design, development, testing and evaluation of 
unmanned systems. The committee also believes the associated 
unique personnel issues of the Department of the Navy's 
unmanned systems must be considered and addressed.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller 
General with preliminary observations due no later than March 
1, 2017, and a report to follow, to examine the Department of 
Navy's personnel strategies for unmanned systems, including 
unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles and 
unmanned underwater vehicles. The report shall include an 
examination of the extent to which the Navy and the Marine 
Corps have done the following: (1) analyzed the personnel 
requirements for positions required to operate aerial, surface, 
and underwater systems including the existing and future 
critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined 
alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors, as 
well as the type of military personnel used, officer, enlisted, 
or a mix, that could be assigned to unmanned systems; (3) 
conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks and 
advantages of the varying personnel assignment strategies they 
are pursuing for unmanned operators; and (4) developed 
strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate unmanned 
using compensation tools available.

Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot programs on 
        career flexibility to enhance retention of members of the armed 
        forces

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review career intermission pilot programs implemented 
pursuant to section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
amended by section 523 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), and the reports 
prepared and submitted under section 533(k) of that Act, and to 
provide a report on the results of the study to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by December 31, 2016. At a minimum, the review 
should assess:
          (a) whether the authorities of the pilot program have 
        provided an effective means to enhance the retention of 
        members of the armed forces possessing critical skills, 
        talents, and leadership abilities;
          (b) the career progression in the armed forces of 
        individuals who participated in the pilot program and 
        whether their careers have been adversely affected;
          (c) the usefulness of the pilot program in responding 
        to the personal and professional needs of individual 
        members of the armed forces;
          (d) the extent to which the designation as a pilot 
        program has discouraged participation by qualified 
        applicants; and
          (e) the costs incurred in the program to date, and an 
        assessment of the expected annual costs in the expanded 
        program as modified by section 523 of the National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to 
        remove limits and restrictions on participation.

Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses involving 
        unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces

    Over the past decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
made significant strides to address problems in its ranks 
regarding hazing, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and 
sexual assault. As DOD has grappled with these problems, 
however, it has historically found that the reporting of these 
incidents is under-reported and fragmented. Defining such 
behaviors as ``hazing,'' ``sexual harassment,'' ``domestic 
violence,'' and ``sexual assault'' has been difficult because 
these behaviors frequently overlap, and because efforts to 
combat unacceptable behaviors must be founded on clearly 
understood definitions that precisely distinguish between 
unacceptable and criminal behavior. These difficulties have 
been complicated by the fact that DOD and the services assign 
responsibility for preventing these behaviors and setting 
policies regarding unwanted sexual behaviors to separate 
offices with different chains of command and different 
reporting databases and reporting mechanisms. As a result, DOD 
lacks a comprehensive view of the continuum of offenses 
involving sexual behavior and can therefore not adequately 
target policies to prevent them, hold perpetrators accountable, 
and care for those who are victims. Because of this 
fragmentation and lack of focus for DOD's sexual prevention 
efforts, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to provide preliminary observations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services no later than April 1, 2017, that 
are based on the following questions:
          (a) To what extent do offices and programs in DOD 
        that are responsible for setting policy and preventing 
        the various types of unwanted sexual behavior involving 
        servicemembers perform the same or similar functions?
          (b) To what extent do these offices coordinate and 
        collaborate with each other to share information and 
        leverage resources?
          (c) To what extent are policies and databases that 
        contain information on incidents on unwanted sexual 
        behavior coordinated to ensure that DOD has a complete 
        picture of the continuum of such behavior and to target 
        policies to prevent them and punish perpetrators?

CONUS Education Options Assessment

    The Department of Defense (DOD) currently operates schools 
or contracts with local education agencies to provide K-12 
education for over 25,000 students in nine states. The 
Department estimates that its annual cost to provide that 
education is over $23,000 per student. The committee is aware 
that DOD contracted with the RAND National Defense Research 
Institute to assess the options for providing K-12 education of 
military children residing on military installations in areas 
of the United States on which the Department of Defense 
Education Activity either operates schools or contracts with 
local education agencies to operate schools. The committee 
understands that RAND considered six alternatives for the 
provision of education to children attending those schools and 
provided its assessment to the Department in May 2015. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the RAND 
report to the committee no later than September 1, 2016, 
together with the Department's views of the recommendations 
contained therein.

Department of Defense consultation with outside experts to improve 
        sexual assault prevention and response programs

    A November 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report entitled ``Sexual Assault: Actions Needed to Improve 
DoD's Prevention Strategy and to Help Ensure it is Effectively 
Implemented,'' found that ``DoD has identified five performance 
measures to assess the effectiveness of its prevention efforts, 
but these measures are not fully developed as they are missing 
many of the 10 key attributes that GAO has found can contribute 
to assessing program performance effectively. . . .'' GAO 
listed five recommendations, and according to the report, the 
Department of concurred with all of them.
    As the Department implements reforms to address these 
recommendations and to improve the Department's sexual assault 
prevention and response strategy, the committee expects the 
Department to consult closely with outside experts in the field 
of sexual assault awareness, prevention, and response.

Department of Defense identity numbers

    The committee recognizes the identity security issues that 
arise for members of Congress and their respective staff who 
deal with the Department of Defense (DoD) on a regular basis. 
Without DoD identify numbers, members of Congress and staff are 
required to provide their Social Security numbers for 
identification purposes on paperwork and to visit the Pentagon. 
Repeatedly divulging this information heightens the risk of 
identify theft, exacerbating the risk already faced by members 
of Congress. Therefore, the committee urges the DoD to provide 
an alternative option to identify these individuals, including 
issuing Department of Defense identity numbers to members of 
Congress or their staff who deal with the DoD on a regular 
basis, as this will also help standardize identification with 
the DoD employees.

Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation Examinations

    The committee understands that current Department of 
Defense policy requires all members of the military services 
who are scheduled to be separated from Active Duty after 
serving for 180 days or more to take a comprehensive Separation 
History and Physical Examination (SHPE). The purpose of the 
SHPE is to ensure all medical conditions incurred or aggravated 
during the servicemembers military service are identified and 
documented prior to separation or retirement from military 
service. The Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs have established a coordinated, standardized 
examination process that supports the VA disability 
compensation program and the DoD SHPE program. Under an 
agreement between DoD and VA, VA providers complete the 
examination for servicemembers who file a claim for VA benefits 
prior to discharge.
    The committee is concerned that the current procedure 
followed by VA providers to conduct a SHPE discourages a 
servicemember who was the victim of military sexual trauma from 
disclosing the assault. Unlike Department of Defense health 
care providers, VA providers are not currently permitted to 
take a restricted report of a sexual assault. Separating 
servicemembers who have a VA-provided SHPE are instructed that 
any discussion about a sexual assault will be included in their 
Service Treatment Records and could change a restricted report 
to an unrestricted report.
    The Committee is concerned that the inability of a 
servicemember to disclose military sexual trauma at the time of 
the SHPE undermines the purpose of the SHPE to produce a 
comprehensive record of all of the servicemember's medical 
conditions incurred or aggravated during military service and 
could compromise the ability of the servicemember to receive 
the full scope of VA benefits to which the servicemember is 
entitled. Furthermore, the Committee understands the personal 
strength and courage it requires for a victim of military 
sexual trauma to file a restricted or unrestricted report of a 
sexual assault, and the committee believes that no 
servicemember should be discouraged from reporting a sexual 
assault. The Committee believes that when barriers to reporting 
are identified every effort should be made to eliminate them.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to 
establish a policy that enables all Department of Defense and 
Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers who 
administer separation exams to take a restricted report of a 
sexual assault. The policy should also ensure that information 
regarding military sexual trauma that is received in connection 
with a restricted report of sexual assault can be appropriately 
considered for the purpose of disability benefits administered 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on hazing

    The GAO recently conducted a study to address the extent to 
which DOD and the Coast Guard, which falls under the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), have developed and implemented 
policies to address incidents of hazing, and have visibility 
over hazing incidents. The GAO made twelve recommendations in 
their report, among them that DOD and the Coast Guard regularly 
monitor policy implementation, issue guidance on the collection 
and tracking of hazing incident data, and evaluate the 
prevalence of hazing. DOD concurred with all twelve GAO 
recommendations and stated an intention to address them. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives on the progress of their implementation of 
the GAO recommendations by the close of the fiscal year 2016.

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

    The committee remains concerned about members of the 
National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed Forces 
finding civilian employment. The committee recognizes that the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Department of 
Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit this 
year to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
House of Representatives a report required by section 583 of 
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), on 
the feasibility of improving the efforts of the Department of 
Defense to provide job placement assistance and related 
employment services to members of the reserve components. The 
committee is committed to reviewing that report and taking any 
recommended actions to improve the processes by which members 
of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed 
Forces may find and obtain civilian employment.

Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence personnel

    The committee is concerned that as the Army continues its 
efforts to regionally align its forces, the U.S. Army Human 
Resources Command does not have a way to quickly 
administratively identify its military intelligence personnel 
who have experience and expertise relevant to specific 
geographical regions of the world.
    Furthermore, as the Department of Defense continues its 
efforts to provide unique broadening assignments and 
opportunities to servicemembers, the committee urges the 
Department to place special focus in providing opportunities to 
military intelligence servicemembers as a way to enhance the 
capabilities of the military intelligence corps and provide the 
Army with the ability to quickly identify personnel who have 
had regionally focused or overseas assignments, language 
proficiency, and relevant advanced degrees.
    In order to enhance our military intelligence capabilities, 
the committee urges the Army to create a regional focus 
identifier for military intelligence personnel to provide the 
Army with a greater ability to assign or surge servicemembers 
to support missions in specific geographical regions of the 
world where certain military intelligence servicemembers are 
best suited through their military, academic, and other 
relevant experience.

Enlisted representation

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to appoint 
senior noncommissioned officers (in the pay grades of E7, E8, 
or E9) as members on Department of Defense boards, panels, or 
bodies of a similar nature, where the topic involves the 
consideration of compensation and benefits (including pay and 
allowances, health care, retirement, and other benefits) of 
enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

F-35A maintainer shortage report

    The committee is aware of the aircraft maintainer shortage 
that is impacting the stand up of F-35A squadrons and impacting 
the combat readiness and sustainment of all other Air Force 
squadrons. As a result of this shortage, the USAF is hiring 
contract maintainers through 2019 in non-deploying squadrons in 
order to ensure the Air Force is able to stand up new F-35A 
squadrons, as well as meet basic operations and maintained 
schedule for training and combat missions across the entire 
inventory. While the committee is supportive of increasing the 
number of USAF aircraft maintainers in order to fill the 
shortage of active-duty maintainers across the force, the 
committee remains concerned about a long-term plan to address 
these shortages. The contract maintainers will only meet the 
Air Force requirements through 2019. Beyond 2019, the Air Force 
still has a total force aircraft maintainer shortfall, and will 
need to access at least 4,000 active duty maintainers to 
replace the contract maintainers, maintain the training 
pipelines, reduce the deploy-to-dwell ratio, and maintain the 
Congressionally mandated 1,950 fighter aircraft floor.
    To address this shortfall, the committee recommends that 
the Air Force should thoroughly assess and consider the number 
of additional active duty, guard, and reserve maintainers that 
they need in order to meet full-spectrum readiness across the 
entire force.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to develop a plan to increase or reallocate authorized 
end strength, to include in the reserve components and to give 
consideration to the most effective and efficient use of the 
total force, to ensure that installations receiving new F-35As 
across the Air Force post-2019 have the necessary maintainers 
to ensure their operation. The committee directs the Secretary 
to provide a written plan to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 90 days following the enactment of 
this Act.

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

    The committee notes that recent changes in the basic 
allowance for housing (BAH), as requested by the Department of 
Defense, were implemented without an appropriate level of 
consideration on the impact such changes would have on military 
housing privatization initiative (MHPI) projects. The committee 
notes that elsewhere in this Act, reforms to the basic 
allowance for housing that take into account actual costs 
should be applied equally to MHPI projects. The Department of 
Defense has continued to view the BAH as compensation, and has 
thus treated it like a piggy bank to return to for savings by 
slicing percentages across the board. However, this committee 
wishes to preserve the tax-free allowance for housing, taking 
into account dependency status and those living in MHPI 
projects and the actual costs of the value of that housing. The 
BAH is intended to provide housing as an in-kind benefit to 
service members, a benefit which should not involve increased 
costs to those members living in the Department of Defense 
contracted MHPI projects.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States, by August 1, 2017, to conduct an audit of each MHPI 
project in the United States to assess the solvency of each 
project and the impact recent changes to BAH may have on the 
long-term sustainability of such projects.

Military to mariner transition

    Some industry experts project that the commercial maritime 
industry will face a shortfall of workers over the coming 
decade. The Navy and the Maritime Administration rely on the 
availability of merchant mariners to crew the Ready Reserve 
Force ships in wartime. The Committee therefore urges the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to work with relevant stakeholders, 
including the Maritime Administration and the Coast Guard, to 
assess whether a shortage is likely, and to develop plans to 
address a potential merchant mariner shortage if such a 
shortage is predicted.
    The Committee recognizes the ability of transitioning 
servicemembers with maritime experience to help fill this void, 
and that DOD could take steps to assist transitioning 
servicemembers in receiving credentials for maritime service in 
the private sector. The Committee recommends that DOD do the 
following: (1) maximize the transferability of active duty 
military servicemembers' career skills to similar civilian 
merchant marine industry positions by aligning, where possible, 
required knowledge, skills, and abilities for military 
positions with knowledge, skills, and abilities for 
certification for maritime careers; and (2) develop a military 
skills translator that could relate military qualifications to 
equivalent commercial certifications, identify gaps in current 
resources available to help servicemembers transition to the 
merchant marine industry, as well as provide courses and 
training to address qualification discrepancies.

Pilot deficiencies

    It is the sense of the Senate that the services may not be 
taking adequate action to remedy the shortfall of fighter 
pilots in the near and long term. The Air Force is currently 
short more than 500 fighter pilots, and expects this to surpass 
800 by 2022. Some other Air Force pilot communities, 
particularly the remotely piloted aircraft community, also have 
shortages, while there are more pilots than needed to meet 
requirements in other communities. The Navy, while meeting 
current requirements, also anticipates a fighter pilot 
shortfall in the early 2020s.
    The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a report on available force management tools, 
as well as how these tools are used by military services with 
pilots, to manage their pilot accessions and force management 
priorities to right size their different communities. The 
Committee encourages the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide a detailed account of all approaches 
currently taken by services and recommend regulatory or process 
changes to service force management practices, as warranted, as 
well as appropriate statutory changes.

Process required for adjudication of suspension or termination of 
        institutions with a voluntary education partnership memoranda 
        of understanding with Department of Defense

    The committee is concerned that Department of Defense 
Instruction (DODI) 1322.25 does not provide adequate 
administrative procedures for the fair and expeditious 
adjudication of complaints about educational institutions that 
have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD 
for a Voluntary Education Partnership. As a result, there is no 
clear guidance on the rights and responsibilities of the DOD or 
of the educational institution prior to and following a DOD 
decision to suspend or terminate a MOU. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense, not later than December 30, 2016, to 
modify the DODI 1322.25 to delineate administrative procedures 
that would ensure that such complaints are resolved fairly and 
expeditiously and establish guidance on the rights and 
responsibilities of the DOD and the subject educational 
institutions after such a complaint has been made.

Religious accommodation in the military

    The committee commends the Army on recent decisions to 
grant religious accommodation to soldiers of the Sikh faith 
that will allow these soldiers to faithfully serve the Army 
while adhering to the tenets of their faith. The committee 
strongly encourages all the military services to provide 
accommodations such as those provided to these soldiers to the 
maximum extent possible. The committee believes any restriction 
based on the health and safety of the force must be narrowly 
drawn and objectively imposed on a factual case-by-case basis. 
Further, the committee does not consider that so-called 
uniformity of appearance, in isolation from other factors, 
remains a compelling government interest in the context of a 
force as varied and diverse as ours. Indeed, over the past 15 
years our military has operated in areas of the world where the 
predominant religions require articles of faith be worn, or 
hair be worn unshorn. The committee concludes that the greater 
and more compelling interest is to allow our servicemembers to 
demonstrate in full view the diversity of the United States 
military.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department and the 
military services to formally adopt policies that allow for the 
consideration of requests for religious accommodation prior to 
enlistment or commissioning and allow such accommodations, once 
granted, to remain in effect for the servicemember throughout a 
career. This will ease administrative burden of processing 
these requests and will empower commanders to consistently 
apply clear and operationally relevant standards. Most 
importantly, it will provide peace of mind and certainty for 
service members who have served and continue to serve their 
nation faithfully.

Report on litigation billets

    Based on the need to retain senior judge advocates with 
litigation experience, the Secretaries of the military 
departments should study the feasibility of designating 
military justice litigators as eligible for continuation under 
subsection (a) of section 503 of this Act. The Secretaries 
shall also submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the manner 
in which the judge advocates general corps under the 
jurisdiction of such Secretary (and, in the case of the Marine 
Corps, the judge advocate command element) would best be 
organized and staffed to provide billets for judge advocates in 
grades 0-5 and 0-6 who have experience as courtroom litigators 
in order to provide such corps with an adequate pool of 
experienced litigators to serve as trial counsel and defense 
counsel in general courts-martial for the prosecution of 
violent offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States 
Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). If additional 
billets are required to provide a corps with such a pool of 
litigators, the report on such corps shall specify the number 
of additional billets so required.

Sexual assault prevention strategy

    A November 2015 report by the Government Accountability 
Office evaluating the Department of Defense's (DoD) sexual 
assault prevention strategy cites several shortfalls. The 
report recommends that the Department implement a comprehensive 
evidence-based approach to determine the success of prevention-
focused activities. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a report on how it will address the issue of 
sexual assault prevention, and encourages DoD to seek expertise 
from outside experts to validate the approach the Department is 
taking.

Space available seating for veterans with service-connected 
        disabilities

    The committee continues to support the Department of 
Defense's (DoD) program to provide transportation on aircraft 
on a space-available basis for eligible individuals. The 
committee recognizes that the department has the authority to 
include veterans with service-connected disabilities in the 
space available program. If there is excess capacity on some 
space available flights, the committee encourages the 
department to assess the feasibility and advisability of 
providing access to the space available program for veterans 
with 100% service-connected, permanent disability.

Transition Assistance Program and reserve component members

    The committee is concerned that the Transition Assistance 
Program (TAP) sometimes fails to meet the unique needs of 
National Guard and Reserve members returning from an active-
duty deployment, especially the needs of those who have 
deployed, and transitioned, multiple times, which oftentimes 
results in an unnecessary duplication of TAP required 
attendance. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
collect data about National Guard and Reserve members' 
transition experiences and to make recommendations to the 
committee on how to better serve the transition needs of this 
population, or alternatively to suggest a transition program 
specifically designed for the National Guard and Reserve.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise of 1.6 percent for all members of the uniformed 
services effective January 1, 2017.
Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of basic pay 
        payable to members of the Armed Forces by pay grade for annual 
        or other pay periods (sec. 602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Department of Defense to ensure that pay tables of basic pay 
for members of the uniformed services published by the 
Department reflect the operation of the pay cap contained in 
section 203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code, to more 
accurately reflect the rates of basic pay that may actually be 
received by service members whose basic pay is affected by that 
cap.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic 
        allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily 
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas 
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx 
of personnel.
Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reform the 
basic allowance for housing (BAH) benefit for members of the 
uniformed services, applicable January 1, 2018. The provision 
would require a system that utilizes actual costs up to a 
maximum allowable amount. No service member will see a change 
in their allowance until such time as they undergo a permanent 
change of duty station outside their military housing area 
after January 1, 2018. The committee notes with disappointment 
the March 2016 Department of Defense report submitted in 
response to the Congressionally-directed reporting requirement 
contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92). This directive required the Department to assess 
how best to modify the current BAH system to accurately capture 
actual housing costs. The Department, however, expressed its 
opposition to limiting BAH to actual housing costs and views 
BAH as simply another form of compensation. The Department 
includes BAH, a tax-free housing benefit, as a part of its 
calculation of ``Regular Military Compensation,'' which it uses 
as an approximation of a civilian salary, and indeed, makes 
this comparison in determining the adequacy of military pay.
    The committee has concerns about how BAH, as an 
entitlement, and the perception of BAH among servicemembers, 
has evolved over the past 20 years. BAH, and the iterations of 
the benefit that came before, was intended to provide a housing 
benefit for service members in recognition of the transient 
nature of military service, and in further recognition of the 
reality that civilian spouses are often unemployed and 
sacrifice careers of their own. Indeed, that the housing 
allowance was and is intended as primarily a housing benefit is 
demonstrated by its tax-free nature, the differentiation based 
on dependency status, and the fact that servicemembers 
occupying government quarters, including junior enlisted 
personnel required to reside in barracks or on a ship, are 
ineligible to receive BAH. This disconnect between what the 
allowance is for and how it is promoted and perceived is 
exacerbated by the significant increases in the benefit over 
the past 16 years. While servicemembers paid as much as 22 
percent of their housing costs out of pocket in the decades 
preceding the change to the current system in the late 1990s, 
by 2006, out-of-pocket expenses were eliminated entirely, and 
indeed, in certain circumstances, as demonstrated by a recent 
US Army Audit Agency (USAAA) audit, the benefit now far exceeds 
the actual cost of housing borne by some servicemembers. USAAA 
found that BAH entitlements paid to married servicemembers 
collocated in the same military housing area significantly 
exceeded the local housing costs for these servicemembers by 
more than $200 million in fiscal year 2014 alone, and 
recommended modifying BAH to bring actual costs more in line 
with the provided benefit.
    For the forgoing reasons, the committee recommends 
substantial reform of the housing benefit. Accordingly, the 
Secretary of Defense is directed to submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
no later than March 1, 2017, a report that describes the new 
BAH calculation will be implemented. Such a report shall 
include the following elements: (1) proposed regulations that 
the Secretary of Defense will implement for the purpose of 
administering the basic allowance for housing inside the United 
States consistent with this provision; (2) any legislative 
changes the Secretary believes are necessary to execute this 
change in application of the BAH; (3) an analysis of whether a 
system that establishes a single rate, similar to the basic 
allowance for subsistence, as applied by rank and grade nation-
wide with a variable allowance for high-cost areas would be a 
preferred option for BAH delivery as an alternative to this 
provision; and (4) an assessment of the impact of these changes 
on retention and overall military compensation, particularly 
pertaining to members who reside with other members and members 
who share accommodations.
Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation 
        pay (sec. 605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 328 of title 10, United States Code, relating to an 
obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation 
pay.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        reserve forces (sec. 611)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty 
training, and income replacement for reserve component members 
experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty 
service.

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health 
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and 
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the 
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual 
incentive bonus.

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 
        special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the 
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and 
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special 
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and 
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in 
health professions, and contracting bonus for cadets and 
midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers' Training Corps. The 
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 
hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill 
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives 
for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned 
to high priority units.

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 
        bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for 
active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning 
incentive pay for foreign language proficiency, the accession 
bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus 
for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease 
personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between 
Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates.

Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, incentive pay, 
        and bonus authorities (sec. 616)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 332 of title 10, United States Code, to correct an 
inequity that will exist when the Department transitions to a 
general bonus authority on October 1, 2017. This amendment will 
increase the maximum bonus authority under the new general 
bonus authority to $20,000 to match the maximum bonus level 
under the old authority. Maintaining the current bonus level 
will enable the Services to retain the ability to recruit and 
retain reserve component officers.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of Reserves to attend 
        inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distance 
        (sec. 621)

    The Committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 478a(c) of title 37, United States Code, to allow for a 
higher reimbursement amount on a case-by-case basis for certain 
members of the Reserve component traveling to attend inactive 
duty training outside of normal committing distances.

Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of certain members of 
        the Armed Forces undergoing a permanent change of station (sec. 
        622)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 1784b of title 10, United States Code, to provide 
greater flexibility for families to determine the sequencing of 
permanent change of station moves when the member and family 
must move separately to accommodate particular circumstances 
requiring such a division, including the accommodation of 
dependent educational obligations and spousal employment and 
education needs. The provision would also require the 
Comptroller General to submit to Congress within one year after 
the enactment of this Act a report assessing potential actions 
of the Department of Defense to enhance the stability of 
military families undergoing permanent changes of station.

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


        Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1409 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
timing for cadets and midshipmen at the service academies to 
opt-in to the new military retirement system enacted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92). The provision would also clarify the timing of 
such elections for reservists who are on Inactive Duty during 
the election period otherwise provided for under the new 
retirement system.

Effect of separation of members from the uniformed services on 
        participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 632)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
paragraph (2) of section 632(c) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). 
This amendment makes a technical correction for the new 
military retirement plan enacted in that Act relative to 
defining separation from service under the Thrift Savings Plan.

Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 12 years of 
        service (sec. 633)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 356 of title 37, United States Code, to modify the 
continuation pay for members under the new military retirement 
system enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to provide the Secretary 
of Defense with the flexibility to offer continuation pay in 
the window between 8 and 12 years of service in exchange for a 
3 years of service or greater commitment as the Secretary deems 
appropriate for retention.

Combat-related special compensation coordinating amendment (sec. 634)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, to make a 
technical and conforming amendment to Combat-Related Special 
Compensation, to bring that authority in line with the new 
military retirement system enacted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).

Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as default contributions of 
        members of the Armed Forces participating in the Thrift Savings 
        Plan under retired pay reform (sec. 635)

    The committee recommends a provision which states the sense 
of the Congress that the Department of Defense should explore 
making the default contributions of a full Thrift Savings Plan 
member under the new military retirement plan enacted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) to be designated as Roth contributions until the 
member elects not to designate such contributions as Roth 
contributions. The Congress believes this will benefit and aid 
enlisted and junior troops in saving for their retirement.

                         Part II--Other Matters


Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance while in certain overseas areas to cover 
        members in any combat zone or overseas direct support area 
        (sec. 641)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 437 of title 37, United States Code, to expand the 
areas eligible for the allowance for covering monthly premiums 
for the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to include any 
designated combat zone or an area directly supporting a 
designated combat zone.

Use of member's current pay grade and years of service, rather than 
        final retirement pay grade and years of service, in a division 
        of property involving disposable retired pay (sec. 642)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1408 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
division of military retired pay in a divorce decree to the 
amount the member would be entitled based upon the member's pay 
grade and years of service at the time of the divorce rather 
than at the time of retirement with the spousal share of the 
retired pay computed on the retired pay as adjusted by the 
annual increases in military pay. This provision is prospective 
only and would not affect existing divorce settlements.

Permanent extension of payment of special survivor indemnity allowances 
        under the survivor benefit plan (sec. 643)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, to permanently 
extend the authority to pay the Special Survivor Indemnity 
Allowance at the monthly rate currently payable for fiscal year 
2017.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1452 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
deduction of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premiums from monthly 
combat related special compensation (CRSC) when retired pay is 
insufficient to cover the premiums.
    The committee notes that under current SBP law, only a 
member's retired pay may be reduced for payment of the SBP 
premiums. In the event that the amount of the required premium 
deductions exceeds the amount of retired pay available to be 
reduced, there is no statutory authority to reduce the combat-
related special compensation. Instead, the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) must pay the full amount of CRSC to 
the member, and the member must then remit the SBP premium 
payment separately back to DFAS. This provision would allow for 
the deduction of SBP premiums from CRSC when the member is in 
receipt of both retired pay and CRSC so that the member does 
not have the extra administrative burden of paying the 
government through a separate check and risking interest 
accrual on such payments.

Sense of the Congress on options for members of the Armed Forces to 
        designate payment of the death gratuity to a trust for a 
        special needs individual (sec. 645)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
Sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should 
explore options to allow servicemembers to designate that, upon 
their death, the death gratuity may be paid to a trust that is 
legally established under any federal, state, or territorial 
law. This would provide greater financial and estate planning 
capability for a servicemember to provide for those who require 
the protections of a trust, such as minor children or 
incapacitated adults, or those with special needs.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide for an independent assessment 
of the Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) by a 
federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC). The 
assessment conducted shall include, but not be limited to, the 
following: (A) A statement of the purposes behind the SBP, how 
that program interacts with other federal programs to provide 
for survivors of military members and retirees, and a 
comparison with civilian sector benefits offered to both 
government and private sector employees intended to provide 
financial stability and resources for spouses and other 
dependent individuals when a primary family earner dies; (B) 
The effectiveness of the SBP in providing survivors with 
intended benefits, including the provision of survivor benefits 
for survivors of members dying on Active Duty and those in a 
reserve status; and (C) Whether the provision of survivor 
benefits might be better accomplished through alternative 
insurance products available commercially for similar purposes, 
to what extent the Government may subsidize such a product so 
that there are no increased costs to the Government, and the 
extent to which such products might meet the needs of 
survivors, especially those on fixed incomes, to maintain 
financial stability. Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
on the independent assessment to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives containing 
the findings of the assessment, together with comments by the 
Secretary on the assessment and recommended statutory changes, 
if any.

   Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at commissaries and 
        exchanges (sec. 661)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2481, 2483, 2484, and 2487 of title 10, United States 
Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to develop and 
implement a comprehensive strategy to optimize management 
practices across the defense commissary system and the exchange 
system that reduces their reliance on appropriated funding 
without reducing benefits to commissary patrons or revenues 
generated by non-appropriated fund entities. This provision 
would authorize the Secretary to carry out an alternative 
pricing program, evaluated against specific, measurable 
benchmarks and a documented baseline level of savings, within 
the defense commissary system to establish prices for goods and 
services in response to market conditions and customer demand. 
Furthermore, the provision would authorize the Secretary to 
convert the commissary system to a non-appropriated fund entity 
or instrumentality if the Secretary determines that the 
alternative pricing program met established benchmarks for 
success for a period of at least 6 months. If conversion to a 
non-appropriated fund entity or instrumentality occurs, the 
Secretary would ensure that no employee of the defense 
commissary system, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
would incur a loss or decrease in pay resulting from the 
conversion. This provision would also authorize the Secretary 
of Defense to establish common business processes, practices, 
and systems to optimize the operations of the entire defense 
resale system, including authorizing the use of appropriated 
and non-appropriated funds on contracts or agreements for the 
acquisition of common systems. Finally, the provision would 
authorize the Secretary to supplement appropriated funds for 
defense commissary system operations with additional funds 
derived from improved management practices and the alternative 
pricing program.

Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary System (sec. 
        662)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to conduct a pilot program, of not less 
than 2 years and at no more than five commissaries, assessing 
the feasibility and advisability of privatization of the 
Defense Commissary System. The provision would authorize the 
Secretary to include such elements as necessary to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of privatization. In conducting 
the pilot program, the Secretary may include an online 
component such that eligible beneficiaries may order and 
purchase goods and products through the Internet and receive 
those items through home delivery. The provision would require 
the Secretary to establish specific, measurable benchmarks of 
success for the provision of high quality grocery merchandise, 
discount savings to patrons, and customer satisfaction. Within 
180 days after completion of the pilot program, the Secretary 
would submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives that, with other 
report requirements, provides an assessment of the feasibility 
and advisability of privatizing the Defense Commissary System.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear furnished to 
        enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry 
        into the Armed Forces (sec. 671)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to furnish athletic footwear directly to 
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps instead 
of providing a cash allowance. Such footwear must comply with 
section 2533a of title 10, United States Code.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 602 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
payment of certain pay and allowances of a servicemember or 
retired servicemember to an individual to whom the member has 
granted authority to manage these funds pursuant to a valid and 
legally executed durable power of attorney. This proposal will 
enable members to responsibly and proactively plan their 
personal affairs in the event of their incapacitation, and to 
allow those durable powers of attorney to be recognized by the 
military departments and the Department of Defense.
    The provision would also amend section 602 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require a bond only in the case of a 
person acting for the benefit of the incapacitated member who 
is designated by the secretary concerned under this section, 
and only if the amount of payments would be more than $25,000.

                       Items of Special Interest


Military forty-year pay table revision advisability report

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives no later than March 1, 2017, a study on the 
advisability and feasibility of reforming the 40-year pay table 
and retirement benefit to cap retired pay based on the highest 
grade achieved, irrespective of years of service performed. 
Such a structure would allow only members of the highest rank 
and highest years of service to earn the highest retirement 
benefit. Caps should be considered separately for commissioned 
and non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted 
personnel. This study should include an assessment of cost 
savings, impact to morale and retention, secondary effects to 
promotion rates, and benefits to force management. This study 
shall also consider cost-saving measures that still allow a 
member with 20 years of total service to retire but prevent 
officers with prior enlisted service to use non-commissioned 
time served to increase their retirement percent eligibility. 
It should also consider the suitability of special pay or 
bonuses as a retention tool as an alternative to increasing the 
retired pay multiplier, to compensate specific occupational 
specialties such as chaplains and limited duty officers, 
specialties that have limited promotion rates but great 
longevity benefits.
    The Committee report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2015 (P.L. 114-92) directed the Secretary 
of Defense to review the military's pay tables, focusing on 
whether the 40-year pay table was still justified as a 
retention tool. The Department of Defense stated it opposed 
reverting back to the 30-year pay table because the 40-year pay 
table accomplishes the Department of Defense's objectives of 
fielding an experienced and ready force capable of retaining 
its most senior members. Although an analysis showed that the 
Department of Defense did experience greater retention of 
general and flag officers and senior non-commissioned officers, 
the most significant percentage increases in service over 30 
years were in the group of field grade officers. At an 
additional cost of $1.2 billion per year and growing, cost-
saving reforms need to be investigated to keep the 40-year pay 
table. These reforms must ensure that the increased incentives 
inherent to the 40-year pay table targets groups that have 
experienced the greatest retention challenges.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Military health system reform overview
    In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission provided the Congress its 
recommendations to modernize the military compensation and 
retirement systems. Building on those recommendations, the 
committee achieved enactment of historic reforms to the 
military retirement system in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). 
These reforms expanded retirement benefits to the majority of 
military servicemembers excluded under the old system while 
saving taxpayers approximately $13.0 billion in discretionary 
spending over the next 10 years and approximately $12.0 billion 
per year in steady state mandatory spending. Modernizing the 
military retirement system demonstrated that true reform can 
deliver better and expanded benefits to military servicemembers 
while saving taxpayer dollars.
    In addition to its recommendations to modernize the 
military retirement system, the Commission recommended major 
reform of the military health system. Those recommendations 
offered a plan to improve and sustain operational medical force 
readiness, improve access to care, and expand beneficiaries' 
choices of health plans.
    The committee has taken a very deliberate approach to 
enacting major military health system reform legislation. For 
more than a year, the committee has worked diligently to 
understand the implications and unintended consequences of any 
plan to reform the military health system a large, complex 
health program with over 9.4 million eligible beneficiaries. 
During this time, the committee held hearings with civilian 
healthcare experts and Department of Defense (DOD) officials, 
studied the attributes of high-performing civilian health 
systems, examined many published reports on military and 
civilian healthcare, visited military treatment facilities, 
held numerous meetings with military and veterans service 
organizations, and conducted sensing sessions with military and 
civilian hospital personnel. Most importantly, the committee 
visited with beneficiaries to better understand their current 
experiences with the military health system and to determine 
whether the existing system meets their needs. This extensive 
work has made invaluable contributions to the committee's 
oversight of the military health system.
    Since 2001, battlefield injury survival rates have been 
higher than at any time in our nation's history. The committee 
applauds military healthcare personnel for professionally and 
compassionately caring for wounded, ill, and injured 
servicemembers over the last 15 years. Clearly, battlefield 
medicine is a pocket of excellence in the military health 
system that must be maintained.
    However, it is also clear that the military health system, 
designed decades ago, has increasingly emphasized delivering 
peacetime healthcare at the expense of strengthening 
operational medical force readiness. Prior to 2001, medical 
force readiness suffered immeasurably, forcing the military 
Services to build a more robust combat casualty care capability 
to meet the demands of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For 
example, the committee understands that OB/GYN physicians 
substituted as trauma surgeons in combat theaters because the 
Services had too few qualified trauma surgeons to meet 
combatant command requirements.
    Bloated medical headquarters staffs--over 12,000 persons 
strong--have failed to take quick action on what needs to be 
fixed in the direct care component of the military health 
system. Despite the lack of additional capacity to enroll 
patients in bottle-necked primary care clinics, beneficiaries 
continue to be forced to receive care at military hospitals. 
The Services claim they need more patients in their hospitals 
to maintain medical force readiness, but the most common health 
services performed by military providers relate to pregnancy, 
childbirth, and pediatric care--health services not typically 
necessary to ensure medical force readiness training.
    In addition, the current stove-piped military health system 
command structure leads to inevitable turf wars among the 
military Services and the Defense Health Agency, paralyzing 
decision-making and stifling healthcare innovation. Data show 
that military healthcare providers have much lower productivity 
than their comparable civilian counterparts, which severely 
limits beneficiaries' access to healthcare services. Although 
set at an unreasonably low level, DOD's productivity goal for 
physicians--40 percent of the Medical Group Management 
Association median--cannot be met by many military medical 
providers. While some lower productivity should be expected due 
to unique medical force readiness training requirements, the 
committee does not believe that these requirements should 
hinder productivity significantly.
    Moreover, a recent study shows that the Services 
underestimate the true costs of officer and enlisted medical 
personnel compared to the total costs for government civilians 
and contractors. The study concluded that the complete cost to 
the taxpayer of military medical personnel far exceeded the 
cost of civilian healthcare providers with comparable skills. 
Data also show that the total cost to provide healthcare 
services in military treatment facilities is greater than the 
cost of providing the same types of services in the private 
sector yet the Department continues to advocate that military 
treatment facilities are less expensive than private sector 
facilities.
    The private sector component of the military health system 
is not without its own flaws. Beneficiaries complain about the 
cumbersome authorization and referral process for specialty 
care and a lack of access to care in large TRICARE provider 
networks. The current TRICARE program's myriad outmoded 
regulations and policies focus on ``the system'' rather than 
doing the right thing for beneficiaries. TRICARE's obsolete 
medical support contract strategy results in high acquisition 
costs, routine bid protests, implementation delays, high 
management costs, and costly contract extensions. Under those 
contracts, the Department, and ultimately the taxpayers, remain 
solely at risk for the cost of all healthcare services 
provided, and the rigid adherence to fee-for-service provider 
reimbursement fails to encourage individual and institutional 
network providers to provide higher quality care, better access 
to care, and higher patient satisfaction at lower costs to the 
Department and the taxpayers.
    As the committee formulated its defense health reform 
initiatives, we determined not to increase TRICARE fees unless 
we could create more value--provide higher quality care, better 
access to care, and a better experience of care. Based on the 
above findings and many others, the committee developed a 
comprehensive legislative package that would provide a gold-
standard, integrated healthcare delivery system, creating high 
value for all beneficiaries. The committee mark contains 
numerous provisions to meet the following reform objectives of 
the committee. Improve and maintain operational medical force 
readiness: (1) creates specialized care centers of excellence 
at major military medical centers; (2) expands military-
civilian trauma training sites and requires integrated trauma 
team training; (3) requires establishment of personnel 
management plans for important wartime medical specialties; (4) 
requires development of quality of care outcome measures for 
combat casualty care; (5) requires greater focus on medical 
research to understand better the causes of morbidity and 
mortality of service men and women in combat; (6) requires 
development of a trauma care registry; (7) requires development 
of standardized tactical combat casualty care training; and (8) 
expands eligibility for care in military treatment facilities 
to veterans and certain civilians.
    Enhance access to high quality healthcare: (1) creates 
local high-performing military-civilian integrated health 
delivery systems; (2) expands telehealth capabilities in the 
military health system; (3) creates specialized care centers of 
excellence at major military medical centers; (4) requires 
contracts for turn-key primary care/urgent care clinics at 
military treatment facilities; (5) authorizes a pilot program 
to give commercial health insurance coverage to reserve 
component members and their families; and (6) requires a 
standardized medical appointment system across the military 
health system.
    Improve beneficiaries' health outcomes: (1) increases 
beneficiary involvement and shared responsibility to improve 
health outcomes and to lower costs--targets smoking cessation 
and weight reduction; (2) incentivizes participation in disease 
management programs; and (3) and incentivizes use of high-value 
providers.
    Create health value: (1) expands and improves access to 
care by requiring a standardized appointment system in military 
treatment facilities; (2) expands the full range of telehealth 
services available to beneficiaries; (3) authorizes lower co-
payments for high-value pharmaceuticals and medical services; 
(4) eliminates the requirement for pre-authorization for 
specialty care referrals; (5) requires a plan to improve 
pediatric care and related services; (6) incentivizes 
participation in disease management programs; (7) authorizes 
enrollment of eligible beneficiaries in federal dental and 
vision insurance programs managed by the Office of Personnel 
Management; (8) authorizes new TRICARE health plans; and (9) 
eliminates existing cost-shares for services provided under the 
current TRICARE Standard plan and replaces them with fixed co-
payments to lower overall costs for beneficiaries.
    Modernize TRICARE medical support contracts: (1) 
incorporates value-based healthcare methodology and value-based 
provider reimbursement into TRICARE contracts; (2) expands 
access to the full range of telehealth capabilities; (3) allows 
contractors to use the latest innovations in the private sector 
health plan market; (4) transfers financial risk to contractors 
and healthcare providers; (5) focuses contracts on building 
networks of high-value providers; and (6) requires a 
competitive, continuously open contracting strategy.
    Drive efficiencies and eliminate waste: (1) right-sizes the 
footprint of the military health system to meet operational 
medical force requirements and the medical readiness of the 
Armed Forces; (2) realigns the medical command structure and 
shrinks headquarters staffing creating greater efficiency in 
the management of the military health system; (3) eliminates 
graduate medical education training programs not directly 
supporting operational medical readiness requirements and the 
medical readiness of the Armed Forces; (4) authorizes 
conversion of military healthcare provider positions to 
civilian or contractor positions; (5) requires a multi-year 
study by the Comptroller General of the United States to find 
healthcare waste throughout the military health system; (6) 
requires centrally-managed, performance-based professional 
staffing contracts; and (7) modernizes TRICARE medical support 
contracts.
    Lower the per capita costs of healthcare for DOD and 
beneficiaries: (1) authorizes very modest increases in existing 
single and family annual enrollment fees by $68 and $135 
respectively for working-age military retirees; (2) authorizes 
changes to co-payments for medical services but allows DOD to 
lower co-payments for high-value services and raise co-payments 
for low-value services; (3) increases pharmacy co-payments 
incrementally over a 9-year window but authorizes DOD to give 
preferential status to any non-generic pharmaceutical agent on 
the uniform formulary by establishing the same co-payment as 
the co-payment of a generic product under the retail and mail 
order programs; (4) authorizes appointment no-show fees in 
military treatment facilities; and (5) incentivizes 
participation in disease management programs.
    Demand performance accountability: (1) establishes 
performance accountability for military healthcare leaders 
throughout the military health system; (2) establishes rigorous 
criteria for selection of military treatment facility 
commanders; and (3) establishes minimum lengths of tours of 
duty for military treatment facility commanders.
    The committee believes these significant reforms constitute 
a critical first step in the evolution of the military health 
system from an under-performing, disjointed health system into 
a high-performing integrated health system that gives 
beneficiaries what they need and deserve: the right care at the 
right time in the right place. True transformation, however, 
will require a cultural change across the entire military 
health system--a change from a system-first culture to a 
patient-first culture. Such a cross-service cultural shift is 
essential to building trust with beneficiaries and creating 
health value for them. The committee expects military health 
system leaders and their private sector partners to begin 
immediately advancing a patient-first culture throughout the 
military health system.

           Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits

Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE program (sec. 
        701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to reform health 
care plans available under the TRICARE program. The provision 
would establish three health plan choices for families of 
Active-Duty servicemembers, and retired military members and 
their families: (1) TRICARE Prime, a managed care option; (2) 
TRICARE Choice, a self-managed option; and (3) TRICARE 
Supplemental, an option for retired members and their families, 
other than TRICARE-For-Life beneficiaries, who have other 
health insurance. Beneficiaries would be required to enroll in 
one of the TRICARE options during an annual open enrollment 
period in order to obtain care through the TRICARE Program.
    Under this provision, the Department would offer TRICARE 
Prime in areas near military treatment facilities (MTFs). 
Active-Duty family members would be authorized to enroll in 
TRICARE Prime, and there would be no cost shares. Retirees and 
their family members would be authorized to enroll in TRICARE 
Prime in areas where an MTF has a significant number of health 
care providers, including specialty providers, and sufficient 
capability to support efficient operations of the MTF. A 
TRICARE Prime enrollee would be required to obtain a referral 
for care from a designated primary care manager prior to 
obtaining care under the TRICARE program. A referral to network 
providers for specialty care services would not require a 
beneficiary to obtain a pre-authorization. The provision would 
require the Secretary to ensure that beneficiaries have the 
same level of access to care within timelines that meet or 
exceed those of high-performing health systems in the private 
sector. The committee believes this should enable beneficiaries 
to obtain same-day appointment access to most primary and some 
specialty health care services.
    This provision would establish TRICARE Choice in other 
locations in the country, and beneficiaries may receive care 
from any health care provider selected by the member subject to 
any restrictions established by the Secretary.
    This provision includes a cost-share table for calendar 
year 2018 for both TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Choice that would 
establish rates for annual enrollment fees, annual deductibles, 
annual catastrophic caps, and co-payments for inpatient visits, 
outpatient visits, and other services. The provision would 
gradually increase the annual enrollment fee for military 
retirees and their families under TRICARE Choice over a period 
of 5 years through 2023. Subsequently, annual enrollment fees 
for military retirees and their families in TRICARE Choice 
after 2023, and for military retirees and their families under 
TRICARE Prime after 2018, would increase by the annual percent 
of the Consumer Price Index for Health Care Services, published 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Additionally, the provision 
would increase the deductible, co-payment, and annual 
catastrophic cap amounts after 2018, by the annual cost of 
living adjustment for military retired pay.
    The provision would authorize the Secretary to adopt 
special coverage and reimbursement methods, amounts, and 
procedures to encourage the use of high-value services and 
products and to discourage the use of low-value services and 
products.
    Under this provision, retirees and their family members 
with other health insurance would be authorized to enroll in 
the TRICARE Supplemental option. The provision establishes an 
annual enrollment fee that would be one-half of the fee for the 
TRICARE Choice option. Under TRICARE Supplemental, TRICARE 
would pay the deductible and co-payment amounts under the 
beneficiary's primary health plan, not to exceed the amount 
TRICARE would have paid as primary payer to an out-of-network 
provider.
    A number of existing TRICARE programs would remain 
unchanged under this provision: (1) Extended Health Care Option 
Program; (2) TRICARE Reserve Select; (3) TRICARE Retired 
Reserve; (4) TRICARE Dental Program; and the (5) Continued 
Health Care Benefits Program. This provision would not affect 
the required cost-shares under the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits 
Program, but the annual enrollment fee, annual deductible, and 
annual catastrophic cap established in this section would apply 
to the pharmacy program. With this provision, the cost-share 
requirements for remote area dependents would be the same as 
those established under the TRICARE Prime Option but without a 
referral requirement.
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE Pharmacy 
        Benefits Program and treatment of certain pharmaceutical agents 
        (sec. 702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
cost-sharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program 
for years 2017 through 2025. After 2025, the Department could 
establish cost-sharing amounts equal to the cost-sharing 
amounts for the previous year adjusted by an amount, if any, to 
reflect increases in costs of pharmaceutical agents and 
pharmacy dispensing fees. With this provision, beneficiaries 
would continue to receive pharmaceuticals at no cost in 
military medical treatment facilities. Under this provision, 
there would be no changes to cost-sharing amounts for survivors 
of members who died on Active Duty or for disabled retirees and 
their family members.
    To encourage use of pharmaceutical agents that provide the 
greatest value to beneficiaries and the Department, the 
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense, upon 
recommendation from the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and 
review by the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, to 
exclude from the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical 
agent that the Secretary determines provides little or no value 
to covered beneficiaries and the Department. Additionally, the 
Secretary would give preferential status to any non-generic 
pharmaceutical agent on the uniform formulary by treating it, 
for the purposes of cost-sharing, as a generic product under 
the TRICARE retail pharmacy and mail order programs. Finally, 
the provision would authorize the Secretary to adopt special 
reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures in medical 
contracts to encourage physicians to use high-value 
pharmaceutical agents and to discourage use of low-value 
agents.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized modest cost-share amount 
increases for certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the 
TRICARE retail pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in 
fiscal year 2016, but it did not include the Administration's 
proposal to increase cost-share amounts in subsequent years. In 
conference deliberations with the House of Representatives last 
year, the conferees agreed to reconsider broader proposed cost-
share amount changes submitted by the Administration with the 
fiscal year 2017 budget request. The committee believes the 
Department should use savings generated from pharmaceutical 
cost-share increases to improve health outcomes and the 
experience of care for beneficiaries of the military health 
system.
Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE program for 
        participation in the Federal Employees Dental and Vision 
        Insurance Program (sec. 703)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 8951 and 8981 of title 5, United States Code, to 
require the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement 
with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to 
offer eligible beneficiaries the opportunity to purchase dental 
and vision insurance currently available to federal employees 
under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 
Program. The committee believes this provision would extend 
highly regarded dental and vision insurance coverage to certain 
eligible beneficiaries and provide better opportunities, 
through enhanced benefits, for improved dental and vision 
health.
Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for digestive and 
        inherited metabolic disorders under the TRICARE program (sec. 
        704)
    The committee recommends a provision that amend section 
1077 of title 10, United States Code, to provide TRICARE 
program coverage for medically necessary food, including the 
equipment and supplies necessary to administer that food, and 
vitamins for digestive disorders and inherited metabolic 
disorders.
Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military health system 
        (sec. 705)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of enactment of 
this Act, to incorporate the use of telehealth services 
throughout the direct and purchased care components of the 
military health system.
    The provision would require the Department to make 
telehealth services available to: (1) improve access to primary 
care, urgent care, behavioral health care, and specialty care; 
(2) perform health assessments; (3) provide diagnoses, 
treatments, interventions, and supervision; (4) monitor 
individual health outcomes of covered beneficiaries with 
chronic diseases or conditions; (5) improve communication 
between health care providers and patients; and (6) reduce 
health care costs for beneficiaries and the Department of 
Defense.
    This provision would require the Secretary to establish 
standardized payment methods to reimburse health care providers 
for telehealth services provided to covered beneficiaries in 
the purchased care component of the TRICARE program to 
incentivize the provision of telehealth services. The provision 
would also require the Secretary to reduce or eliminate co-
payments or cost-shares for covered beneficiaries for receipt 
of telehealth services.
    The Secretary would be required to submit an initial 
report, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, describing the full range of telehealth 
services to be available in the direct and purchased care 
components of the military health system. Within 3 years after 
the date of incorporation of telehealth services throughout the 
military health system, the Secretary would be required to 
submit a final report to the committees describing the impact 
made by use of telehealth services in the direct and purchased 
care components of the military health system.
    Early this year, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Health Affairs published a memorandum that authorized the 
provision of telemedicine services at a patient's location. The 
committee considers this policy a good first step, but the 
additional conditions applied to the policy unduly restrict 
beneficiaries' full use of the same telehealth capabilities 
readily available in the private sector. The committee believes 
the Department should amend its published conditions for the 
provision of telemedicine services to ensure beneficiaries 
everywhere have full access to those services.
Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at military 
        treatment facilities (sec. 706)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
veteran or civilian to be evaluated and treated at a military 
treatment facility if the Secretary of Defense determines that: 
(1) the evaluation and treatment of the individual is necessary 
to maintain the medical readiness skills and competencies of 
health care providers at the facility; (2) health care 
providers at the facility have the competencies, skills and 
abilities to treat the individual; and (3) the facility has 
available space, equipment, and materials.
    The provision would authorize a military treatment facility 
to bill and accept reimbursement for services provided to a 
civilian patient. Under this provision, the Secretary of 
Defense would be required to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs whereby 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would reimburse a military 
treatment facility for the costs of any health care services 
provided to individuals eligible for health care services from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    By authorizing military health care providers to treat 
eligible veterans and certain civilians in military treatment 
facilities, this provision would help the Department of Defense 
to ensure that military health care providers maintain their 
operational medical force readiness skills and core 
competencies.
Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of the reserve 
        components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program jointly 
with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
(Director), of at least 5 years duration, to provide commercial 
health insurance coverage to eligible reserve component members 
who enroll for either individual, self plus one, or self and 
family coverage. If the Secretary, and the Director, determine 
that a pilot program is feasible, the Director would contract 
with qualified health insurance carriers to provide eligible 
beneficiaries with a variety of high quality health benefits 
plans, which could vary by plan design, covered benefits, 
geography, and price. Reserve component members and their 
family members would not be eligible to enroll in a health plan 
in the pilot program if they are eligible to enroll in a health 
benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program.
    Under the pilot program, the Secretary could contract with 
qualified health insurance carriers to provide coverage for 
health care services provided at military treatment facilities 
to pilot program participants, and the Department would receive 
payment from those carriers for any services provided at those 
facilities. Family members of an eligible reserve component 
member could remain covered under the pilot program even when 
the reserve component member became ineligible for coverage 
while serving on Active Duty for a period greater than 30 days.
    In addition, an eligible reserve component member would be 
responsible for payment of all cost sharing amounts applicable 
to the health benefits plan plus an annual premium amount equal 
to 28 percent of the total annual amount of the premium under 
the plan. During a period in which a reserve component member 
served on Active Duty for more than 30 days, the premium amount 
and cost shares would be zero for eligible family members.
    In consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
the Secretary would provide recommendations and data to the 
Director on matters regarding military treatment facilities, 
matters unique to eligible reserve component members and their 
families, and any other guidance necessary to administer the 
pilot program. The Secretary and the Director would jointly 
establish a funding mechanism for the pilot program, and the 
Secretary would make funds available to the Director, without 
fiscal year limitation, for payment of health plan costs and 
administrative expenses.
Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for post-
        traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma 
        (sec. 708)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, of not 
more than 3 years duration, to award competitive grants to 
community partners to provide intensive outpatient programs to 
treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from post-traumatic 
stress disorder resulting from military sexual trauma, 
including treatment for substance use disorder, depression, and 
other issues related to those conditions. Under this provision, 
a community partner would be a private health care organization 
or institution that: 1) provides health care to servicemembers; 
2) provides evidence-based treatment for psychological and 
neurological conditions common to servicemembers; 3) provides 
health care, support, and other benefits to family members of 
servicemembers; and 4) provides health care under the TRICARE 
program. The government share of the costs of programs carried 
out by community partners could not exceed 50 percent in this 
pilot program.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, Navy, and Air 
        Force into the Defense Health Agency (sec. 721)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to disestablish the medical departments of 
the Armed Forces and consolidate all activities of those 
departments into the Defense Health Agency. The Secretary could 
not undertake this action until 60 days after submission of the 
Department's consolidation plan to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 
provision would also require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the consolidation plan and submit that 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives within 180 days after the 
Secretary submits the plan to the committees.
    Under this provision, the Defense Health Agency would be 
led by an officer of the Armed Forces holding the grade of 
lieutenant general or vice admiral and be responsible for the 
medical operations of the Department of Defense. The resultant 
Defense Health Agency would consist of four subordinate 
organizations: 1) an organization responsible for all military 
medical treatment facilities; 2) an organization responsible 
for medical professional recruitment and retention activities, 
medical education and training, research and development 
activities, and executive agencies for medical operations or 
activities; 3) an organization responsible for activities and 
duties of the current Defense Health Agency; and 4) an 
organization responsible for activities and duties to improve 
and maintain operational medical force readiness capabilities 
and to ensure sustainment of combat casualty care and trauma 
readiness of military health care providers. A major general or 
rear admiral upper half would serve as head of each subordinate 
organization.
    The provision would give broad authorities to the Director 
of the Defense Health Agency, under the supervision and control 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, to 
conduct the medical operations functions of the Department. In 
addition, the provision would amend sections 3036, 5137, and 
8036 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the duties 
and responsibilities of the Surgeons General of the military 
Services as principal advisor to the service secretary and 
service chief as well as chief medical advisor of that Service 
to the Defense Health Agency. Finally, the provision would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on 
consolidation, by January 1, 2017, to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
    After careful study, the committee concludes that a single 
agency responsible for all medical operations of the Department 
of Defense would best improve and sustain operational medical 
force readiness and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; 
improve beneficiaries' access to care and the experience of 
care; improve health outcomes; and lower the management cost of 
the military health system.
    In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission provided the committee its 
recommendations to modernize the military health system. The 
commission made important recommendations to improve and 
sustain military medical force readiness, to improve access to 
care, and to expand beneficiaries' choices of health plans.
    Unfortunately, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 
the Services have made insufficient progress over the past year 
to improve health care delivery services for beneficiaries. The 
committee continues to hear from beneficiaries voicing problems 
with access to health care services--obtaining medical 
appointments quickly; receiving timely referrals for specialty 
care; receiving coordinated care in military hospitals and in 
the private sector; and receiving urgent care when primary care 
appointments are unavailable. It is clear to the committee that 
the existing medical command structure of the Department--a 
structure that numbers almost 12,000 military, civilian and 
contract staff members--has failed to recognize and rapidly 
correct systemic problems in health care delivery in military 
hospitals and clinics. The committee believes that the current, 
inefficient organizational structure of the military health 
system paralyzes rapid decision-making and stifles innovation 
in producing a modern health care delivery system that would 
better serve all beneficiaries. A streamlined organizational 
structure, eliminating redundancy and generating greater 
efficiency, would yield significant monetary savings to the 
Department and lead to true reform of the military health 
system while improving the experience of care for 
beneficiaries.
Accountability for the performance of the military health care system 
        of certain positions in the system (sec. 722)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 
departments, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this 
Act, to incorporate performance accountability measures into 
the annual performance reviews of certain leadership positions 
in the military health care system. The provision would 
prohibit payment of a performance bonus to a civilian employee 
of the Department of Defense occupying a position, specified in 
the provision, unless the operations of the military health 
care system met or exceeded performance measures during the 
period of the employee's annual performance review. The 
Secretary of Defense would submit a report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
within 180 days of enactment of this Act, which describes the 
incorporation of performance accountability measures in the 
annual performance reviews of leadership positions in the 
military health care system.
Selection of commanders and directors of military treatment facilities 
        and tours of duty of commanders of such facilities (sec. 723)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop common qualifications and core 
competencies required for selection of commanders or directors 
of military medical treatment facilities. The provision would 
also establish a minimum length of 4 years for tours of duty, 
with limited exceptions, for those commanders or directors to 
ensure greater stability in health system executive management 
at each facility and throughout the military health system.
    The committee is concerned that military treatment facility 
commanders typically rotate to new duty stations every 2 years, 
and these frequent transfers lead to great instability in the 
management of hospitals and clinics. The rapid turnover of 
military hospital commanders creates turmoil in hospital 
executive leadership and management, negatively affecting the 
performance of the local facility and the overall performance 
of the entire military health system. The committee believes 
this provision would steady the executive management of 
military hospitals and clinics and improve the performance of 
those facilities.
Authority to convert military medical and dental positions to civilian 
        medical and dental positions (sec. 724)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Department of Defense to convert military medical and dental 
positions to civilian positions if: 1) conversion would not 
result in a loss of a military-essential position; 2) 
conversion would not result in degradation of medical care or 
the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; and 3) conversion to 
a civilian position would be more cost effective. The committee 
believes this provision would give the military services more 
flexibility to achieve the most efficient medical and dental 
force mix aligned with their operational missions and to 
correct skill and specialty imbalances within the medical and 
dental forces.
    In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 
published a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical 
total force management. In the study, IDA determined that the 
military services underestimate the true costs of officer and 
enlisted medical personnel compared to the total costs for 
government civilians and contractors. IDA calculated that the 
complete cost to the taxpayer of military medical personnel far 
exceeded the cost of civilian health care providers with 
comparable skills.
    Since the military services seemingly underestimate the 
full cost of medical personnel, they incorrectly rely on more 
military medical personnel than civilians and contractors to 
provide health care services to beneficiaries. This problem 
primarily occurs in the Navy and Air Force as their staffing 
models generally favor using more military medical personnel 
than civilians or contractors. In contrast, the Army has a more 
civilian-intensive medical labor force. If the Navy and Air 
Force military-to-civilian staff ratios closely matched Army 
ratios, IDA calculated short-term savings to taxpayers of 
$500.0 million per year and long-term savings of $1.0 billion 
per year. The committee believes this provision would enable 
the Department to garner significant short and long-term 
budgetary savings that could be used to enhance the health care 
experience of beneficiaries or to improve overall military 
readiness.
Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care services 
        provided by military treatment facilities (sec. 725)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretary of a military department to realign the 
infrastructure of or modify the health care services provided 
by a military treatment facility (MTF) if a realignment or 
modification would better: 1) ensure the delivery of safe, high 
quality health care services; 2) adapt the delivery of health 
care in a facility to rapid changes in private sector health 
care delivery models; or 3) maintain the medical force 
readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers 
in a facility. Before taking any action under this provision, 
the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives on proposed realignments of infrastructure 
of or modifications of health care services at MTFs. Within 60 
days after the Secretary submits a report under this provision, 
the Comptroller General of the United States would submit a 
review of such report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE program (sec. 726)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a new competition of all 
medical support contracts, except the overseas medical support 
contract, with private sector entities under the TRICARE 
program by January 1, 2018, upon expiration of each such 
contract. New contracts would be competitively procured and 
automatically renewable for a period of not more than 10 years 
unless notice for termination is provided by either party not 
later than 180 days before contract termination. The Department 
would award contracts with a combination of local, regional and 
national private sector entities to develop individual and 
institutional networks of high-performing health care 
providers. The Secretary could not exercise an option to extend 
an existing medical support contract with a private sector 
entity that would delay the award of a new contract.
    Within 1 year of the award of new medical support 
contracts, the Secretary would be required to issue an open 
broad agency announcement to allow potential contractors to 
propose innovative ideas and solutions to meet the medical 
support contract needs of the Department. A medical support 
contract awarded through the open broad agency announcement 
would be deemed to meet the requirements under section 2304 of 
title 10, United States Code, relating to use of competitive 
procedures to procure services.
    For new medical support contracts, the Department would be 
required to include, to the extent practicable: (1) maximum 
flexibility in network design and development; (2) integrated 
medical management between military medical treatment 
facilities and network providers; 3) maximum use of the full 
range of telehealth services; (4) use of value-based 
reimbursement methods that transfer financial risk to health 
care providers and medical support contractors; (5) use of 
prevention and wellness incentives to encourage beneficiaries 
to seek health care services from high-value providers; (6) a 
streamlined enrollment process and timely assignment of primary 
care managers; (7) elimination of the requirement to seek 
authorization of referrals for specialty care services; (8) the 
use of incentives to encourage certain beneficiaries to engage 
in medical and lifestyle intervention programs; and (9) the use 
of financial incentives for contractors and health care 
providers to receive an equitable share in cost savings 
resulting from improvement in health outcomes and the 
experience of care for beneficiaries.
    In establishing new medical support contracts, the 
provision would require the Secretary to: (1) assess the unique 
characteristics of providing health care services in rural, 
remote, or isolated locations, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and 
locations in the contiguous 48 states; (2) consider the various 
challenges inherent in developing robust provider networks in 
those locations; and (3) develop a provider reimbursement rate 
structure in those locations that ensures timely access to 
care, high quality primary and specialty care, and improvement 
in health outcomes. Additionally, the Secretary could not 
modify existing medical support contracts or enter into new 
contracts in rural, remote, or isolated locations until the 
Secretary certifies to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives that those contracts 
would ensure timely access to care, high quality care, better 
health outcomes, and a better experience of care. The provision 
would also require the Comptroller General of the United States 
to submit a report, by January 1, 2019, that assesses the 
compliance of the Secretary with the requirements of this 
section.
    The committee views this provision as critically important 
to reform of the TRICARE program. The Department's contract 
strategy for the next generation of TRICARE managed care 
support contracts, commonly known as the T-2017 contracts, does 
not acknowledge the rapid changes in delivery of health care 
services in the private sector. The T-2017 contract strategy 
fails to focus on development of high-value provider networks, 
and the Department remains fixed on reimbursing network 
providers solely on the number and types of services provided 
rather than on improvement in beneficiaries' health outcomes 
and the experience of care.
    Moreover, the Department's current strategy of essentially 
awarding 5-year contracts (1 base-year with 4 option-years) 
results in a winner-take-all approach that limits competition 
and stifles adoption of innovations in health care delivery. 
The Department and the American taxpayers continue to assume 
all financial risk in those contracts while that risk, if 
transferred to health care providers and medical support 
contractors, would encourage more efficient, effective delivery 
of health care services. The committee firmly believes that 
multiple local, regional, and national TRICARE medical support 
contracts, which transfer financial risk from the government to 
contractors and health care providers, would improve 
beneficiaries' health outcomes, simplify the onerous, costly 
contracting process, and ultimately lower health care costs for 
the Department.

Authority to enter into health care contracts with certain entities to 
        provide care under the TRICARE program (sec. 727)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts to provide 
health care, including behavioral health care, to covered 
beneficiaries under the TRICARE Program with any of the 
following: (1) the Department of Veterans Affairs; (2) an 
Indian tribe or tribal organization that is party to the Alaska 
Native Health Compact with the Indian Health Service; and (3) 
an Indian tribe or tribal organization that has entered into a 
contract with the Indian Health Service to provide health care 
in rural Alaska or other locations in the United States.

Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of health care 
        under TRICARE program through programs to involve covered 
        beneficiaries (sec. 728)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to implement programs 
to increase involvement of covered beneficiaries in making 
health care decisions and to encourage beneficiaries to share 
more responsibility for the improvement in their health 
outcomes through participation in medical and lifestyle 
intervention programs. This provision would also authorize the 
Secretary to charge and collect a fee from a covered 
beneficiary, other than an Active-Duty servicemember, for 
failure to notify a military treatment facility, within 24 
hours of a scheduled appointment with a health care provider, 
that the beneficiary will be unable to attend the appointment. 
The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, by January 1, 2020, that describes 
implementation of the programs mandated under this provision.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should make a greater effort towards controlling health care 
costs for high-need, high-cost patients. Recent studies show 
that comprehensive care management programs can improve a 
patient's health outcomes and quality of life while reducing 
costs for the patient and the patient's health plan. This 
provision would incentivize those beneficiaries with chronic 
diseases or conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, or 
depression, or those exhibiting unhealthy behaviors, such as 
tobacco use or obesity, to participate in comprehensive medical 
or lifestyle intervention programs designed to improve 
beneficiaries' health outcomes and functional status while 
controlling health care costs for those beneficiaries and the 
Department.
    In addition, the committee is concerned about the high 
number of failed medical appointments in the military health 
system. From October 2014 through September 2015, there were 
over 1.6 million scheduled appointments missed by all 
categories of beneficiaries--Active-Duty servicemembers missed 
over 700,000 of those scheduled appointments. Although other 
patients likely filled some missed appointments, the military 
services could not provide accurate data to demonstrate that 
fact to the committee. The large number of failed appointments 
negatively affects access to care for all beneficiaries at 
great financial costs to the Department and taxpayers. It is 
clear to the committee that the military services must take 
this problem more seriously by implementing programs to 
minimize the number of failed appointments in military 
hospitals and clinics.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish regional centers of 
excellence for the provision of specialty care to covered 
beneficiaries at major medical centers of the Department of 
Defense. The provision would authorize the Secretary to 
establish satellite centers, when and where appropriate, 
particularly to provide specialty care for post-traumatic 
stress and traumatic brain injury.
    Furthermore, the provision would specify the types of 
centers of excellence that the Secretary could establish while 
allowing for the establishment of additional centers when 
appropriate. The centers of excellence established under this 
provision would serve as the primary sources for specialty care 
within the direct care health system, and health care providers 
throughout the system would refer beneficiaries to those 
facilities. The provision would require the Secretary to submit 
a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, within 180 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act, which provides a plan to establish 
specialty care centers of excellence in the military health 
system.
    After careful study, the committee concludes that 
establishment of specialty care centers of excellence in the 
military health system would result in the delivery of superior 
health care for specialized procedures, therapies, and 
services, and improve health outcomes for beneficiaries. By 
concentrating military specialty care providers in regional 
major medical centers, such as Walter Reed National Military 
Medical Center, Brook Army Medical Center, Keesler Medical 
Center, Womack Army Medical Center, Naval Medical Center 
Portsmouth, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and Madigan Army 
Medical Center, the Department would enhance operational 
medical force readiness by allowing military health care 
providers to practice and train in multi-disciplinary, team-
oriented environments treating complex, high acuity patients. 
This modern approach to the delivery of specialty medical care 
in the military health system would closely mirror the approach 
used by high-performing health systems in the private sector 
such as the Cleveland Clinic.

Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve quality 
        of health care services delivered in military treatment 
        facilities (sec. 730)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a program, not later than 
January 1, 2018, to: (1) establish best practices for the 
delivery of health care services for certain diseases or 
conditions at military treatment facilities; (2) incorporate 
those best practices into the daily operations of military 
treatment facilities participating in the program; and (3) 
eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve the 
quality of health care services delivered at military treatment 
facilities. Under this provision, the Secretary would conduct 
the program in three phases and be required to complete each 
phase within 180 days following initiation of that phase. The 
initiation of phases two and three would immediately follow 
completion of the previous phase.
    The provision would require the Secretary, during the 
conduct of the program, to continuously monitor and adjust the 
health care services delivered at military treatment facilities 
and the number of patients enrolled at those facilities to 
ensure: (1) a high degree of safety and quality in the delivery 
of health care at those facilities; and (2) the delivery of 
only those health care services critical for maintaining 
operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness 
of the Armed Forces.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory committee for 
each military medical treatment facility. Each advisory 
committee would include six beneficiaries eligible for health 
care services in the military health system: (1) two Active-
Duty servicemembers; (2) two Active-Duty family members; and 
(3) two military retirees. The committee recognizes that 
beneficiaries need an official forum to provide guidance on the 
operations of military treatment facilities. Advisory committee 
members would regularly engage with the executive management of 
each military treatment facility to discuss concerns and to 
provide feedback on matters relating to the provision of health 
care services in the facility.

Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments at military 
        treatment facilities (sec. 732)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement, by January 1, 2018, a 
standardized medical appointment scheduling system at military 
treatment facilities throughout the military health system. 
Under this provision, no military treatment facility would have 
the authority to use an appointment scheduling system other 
than the standardized system. Each military treatment facility 
would make available a centralized appointment system that 
allows beneficiaries to make appointments, either by telephone 
or by an internet-connected device, including by smartphone 
application, through an online scheduling system available 24 
hours per day, 7 days per week. The online appointment system 
would be able to send automated email and text message 
reminders to patients.
    The committee regularly hears from beneficiaries that the 
multiple medical appointment systems used across the military 
health system lead to extended delays in getting timely care 
and result in poor patient satisfaction. The committee believes 
the current appointment scheduling systems lead to waste, 
inefficiency, and lower provider productivity. The Department 
should quickly implement a new appointment scheduling system, 
universally applied in each military treatment facility, which 
enables beneficiaries to make appointments rapidly and stress-
free. The new, standardized appointment system should enable 
beneficiaries to make appointments at least 1 year in advance, 
and it should send automatic appointment reminders by email, 
telephone or text message.

Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency departments, 
        and pharmacies of military treatment facilities (sec. 733)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
commander or director of a military treatment facility, by 
January 1, 2018, to display in a conspicuous location at each 
urgent care clinic, emergency department, and pharmacy in a 
military treatment facility an electronic sign that displays 
the current average wait time either to be seen by a qualified 
medical provider or to receive a filled prescription of a 
pharmaceutical agent. The provision would prescribe how the 
commander or director should determine the average wait times 
for beneficiaries at urgent care clinics, emergency 
departments, and pharmacies in military treatment facilities.

Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and trauma care 
        skills of health care providers of Department of Defense (sec. 
        734)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement measures to improve and 
maintain the combat casualty care and trauma care skills for 
health care providers of the Department of Defense by January 
1, 2018. The provision would require the Secretary to: (1) 
conduct a comprehensive review of combat casualty care and 
wartime trauma systems from January 1, 2001 to the present 
time; (2) expand military-civilian trauma training sites to 
provide enhanced training for integrated combat trauma teams; 
(3) establish a personnel management plan for important wartime 
medical specialties; (4) develop standardized tactical combat 
casualty care instructions and training for all servicemembers; 
(5) develop a comprehensive trauma care registry; (6) develop 
quality of care outcome measures for combat casualty care; and 
(7) conduct research to understand better the causes of 
morbidity and mortality of servicemembers in combat.

Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized strengths, and 
        infrastructure in military health system to maintain readiness 
        and core competencies of health care providers (sec. 735)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement measures, within 180 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act, to maintain the critical 
wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies of 
health care providers within the Armed Forces. The provision 
would require the Secretary to implement a measure to ensure 
the military Services do not substitute a medical specialty 
required for medical force readiness with another medical 
specialty. Additionally, the provision would require the 
Secretary to: (1) modify medical services; (2) reduce 
authorized strengths of military and civilian personnel; and 
(3) reduce or eliminate unnecessary infrastructure in the 
military health system such that military treatment facilities 
would provide only those services required to maintain the 
critical wartime medical skills and core competencies of health 
care providers and to ensure the medical readiness of the Armed 
Forces.
    Moreover, this provision would require the Comptroller 
General of the United States to provide a report, within 18 
months of the date of enactment of this Act, which assesses the 
Department's implementation of this provision, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
    In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 
published a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical 
total force management and noted that the total active military 
medical force ``generally exceeds the Service-identified 
military essential requirement.'' In the report, IDA stated 
that the military services have ``historically understaffed 
operationally required specialties like surgery while over-
staffing beneficiary care specialties like pediatrics and 
obstetrics.'' The IDA report also found that the military 
services' estimates of medical operational requirements 
``significantly exceed historic deployment levels and staffing 
requirements for deployable units.''
    The IDA report clearly showed that the military services' 
medical force authorized strengths exceed current operational 
medical force readiness requirements. The committee expects the 
Department to: (1) adjust downward the total medical force mix 
to coincide with rational and appropriate operational medical 
force requirements; (2) eliminate health care services provided 
in military treatment facilities that do not directly support 
operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness 
of the Armed Forces; and (3) eliminate excess infrastructure in 
military hospitals and clinics. In making these necessary 
adjustments, the Department should ensure eligible 
beneficiaries unable to receive health care services in 
military treatment facilities have access to high-value primary 
and specialty care services in the private sector.

Establishment of high performance military-civilian integrated health 
        delivery systems (sec. 736)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to establish high 
performance military-civilian integrated health delivery 
systems through partnerships with other health systems, 
including local or regional health systems in the private 
sector and the Veterans Health Administration. One of the 
objectives of these partnerships would be to transfer health 
care services, non-essential for maintenance of medical 
readiness skills of military health care providers, from 
military treatment facilities to the private sector. The 
Department of Defense would accomplish these partnerships 
either through memoranda of understanding or contracts between 
military treatment facilities and private sector health 
systems, such as health maintenance organizations, regional 
health organizations, integrated health systems, and health 
care centers of excellence, as well as the Veterans Health 
Administration. Under this provision, covered beneficiaries 
would be eligible to enroll in and receive medical services in 
the private sector component of established military-civilian 
integrated health networks. The Secretary of Defense would be 
required to incorporate value-based reimbursement methodologies 
into any memoranda of understanding or contracts to reimburse 
private sector entities for medical services provided to 
covered beneficiaries.
    The committee believes that implementation of this 
provision would improve health outcomes and enhance the 
experience of care for beneficiaries as local military 
treatment facilities create strong synergistic relationships 
with private sector health systems to form integrated high 
performance health systems. These formal relationships would 
foster innovation in military treatment facilities, enhance 
operational medical force readiness, improve access to 
specialized medical care, and strengthen care coordination 
through integration of all activities of these new health 
delivery systems.

Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain health care 
        services at military treatment facilities (sec. 737)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into centrally-managed, 
performance-based contracts with private sector entities to 
augment the delivery of health care services at military 
treatment facilities with limited or restricted ability to 
provide services such as primary care or expanded-hours urgent 
care. Under this provision, contracts would be designed to 
purchase improvement in health outcomes for covered 
beneficiaries seeking health care services in military 
treatment facilities.
    The provision would require the Secretary to submit a plan 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
that includes: (1) a description of the number and types of 
contracts the Secretary intends to procure; and (2) a 
description of the performance measures used in procuring 
performance-based contracts.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 725(a) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291), which would require the Department of Defense to 
implement a performance-based, strategic-sourcing contract for 
acquiring health care professional staffing services for the 
military health system. The provision would require all 
components of the military health system to use the contract, 
and the Department would be required to develop a process for 
obtaining a waiver, based on documented rationale, to use 
another contract or acquisition approach.
    The committee remains frustrated that the Defense Health 
Agency and the military services have delayed any progress 
towards developing a unified contracting strategy to procure 
medical and dental staffing services in military treatment 
facilities. The current individual contracting strategy for 
medical and dental staffing services leads to higher costs for 
procurement and significantly delayed staff augmentation in 
military treatment facilities. This inefficient contracting 
strategy ultimately hinders access to care for beneficiaries.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
administrative costs of the TRICARE program by removing an 
annual requirement that the managed care support contractors 
generate and mail an enrollment renewal letter to all 
beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime. The committee notes 
that the Department of Defense currently uses multiple avenues 
to notify beneficiaries of annual changes to the TRICARE 
Program. This provision would eliminate an unnecessary 
administrative process and save taxpayers up to $2.4 million 
per year.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters


Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants to provide 
        mental health care to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 751)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence a physician assistant 
psychiatric fellowship pilot program, within 1 year of the date 
of enactment of this Act, to assess the feasibility and 
advisability of expanding the use of physician assistants 
specializing in psychiatric medicine. The pilot program would 
consist of two rounds with each round taking a maximum of 2 
years to complete. Under this provision, the Secretary would 
select a least five individuals to participate in the pilot 
program for each round. The provision would require the 
Secretary to use existing graduate medical education programs 
of the Department to the greatest extent possible in carrying 
out the pilot program. Within 180 days after the date the 
Secretary completes the first round of the psychiatric 
fellowship pilot program, the Secretary would submit an initial 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives on the program. Subsequently, the 
Secretary would submit a final report that updates the initial 
report within 90 days after termination of the pilot program. 
The authority for the pilot program would terminate upon 
completion of the second round of the psychiatric fellowship 
program.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement a phased plan, within 1 year 
of the date of enactment of this Act, to eliminate those 
graduate medical education programs of the Department that do 
not directly support the medical force readiness requirements 
for health care providers within the Armed Forces. The 
Secretary would provide a report, within 180 days of the date 
of enactment of this Act, which provides the Department's plan 
to eliminate graduate medical education programs non-essential 
for medical force readiness.
    The military services currently train military health care 
professionals in a mix of federal and civilian graduate medical 
education (GME) programs. The military services' data show that 
over 5,000 students received training in over 700 programs in 
academic year 2014-2015. Additionally, the military services 
required over 3,700 faculty and support staff to conduct their 
in-house training programs. Further evaluation of the military 
services' data reveals there are numerous GME programs funded 
by the military services, which have little to no direct 
relationship to the support of operational medical force 
readiness requirements. The committee understands that the 
military services have, for decades, relied on GME programs to 
recruit health care professionals, especially physicians and 
dentists, into military service, but the military services 
should now reevaluate their GME programs and right-size them to 
match realistic operational medical force readiness 
requirements. Cost savings resulting from right-sizing GME 
programs could be used to improve overall military readiness.

Modification of authority of Uniformed Services University of the 
        Health Sciences to include undergraduate and other medical 
        education and training programs (sec. 753)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences to grant certificates, certification, and 
undergraduate degree programs in addition to advanced degrees.

Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher education that offer 
        degrees in allopathic or osteopathic medicine (sec. 754)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to create memoranda of agreement with 
local or regional allopathic or osteopathic schools of medicine 
to establish military treatment facilities as affiliate 
teaching hospitals. By sharing training facilities, staffing, 
and material resources, these new academic affiliations could 
help improve and sustain operational medical force readiness 
and possibly serve as productive recruiting grounds for new 
military physicians.

Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department of 
        Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 755)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of 
Veterans Affairs demonstration fund from September 30, 2017, to 
September 30, 2018.

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development 
        projects (sec. 756)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense and each service secretary from 
funding or conducting a medical research and development 
project unless the secretary concerned determines that the 
project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and 
safety of members of the Armed Forces.

Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense to entities 
        carrying out state vaccination programs for costs of vaccines 
        provided to covered beneficiaries (sec. 757)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse an entity carrying out a 
state vaccination program for the cost of providing vaccines to 
covered beneficiaries. Under this provision, the amount of 
reimbursement could not exceed the amount that the Department 
would reimburse an entity for providing vaccines to covered 
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program.

Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and services to 
        treat autism spectrum disorder under demonstration program 
        (sec. 758)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, on the date of enactment of this Act, to 
reinstate the reimbursement rates in effect on March 1, 2016, 
for the provision of applied behavior analysis therapy and to 
preserve those rates throughout the duration of the 
Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program conducted under 
section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 10 U.S.C. 1092 note), as 
extended and modified by the Secretary.
    The committee is concerned that certain changes to provider 
reimbursement rates implemented by the Department of Defense on 
April 1, 2016, have negatively affected both access to care and 
continuity of care for TRICARE beneficiaries seeking applied 
behavior analysis therapy. The committee believes it is vitally 
important to ensure that TRICARE beneficiaries with autism 
spectrum disorder receive timely, uninterrupted services under 
the Department's demonstration program.

Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of Defense of 
        questions on service women experiences with family planning 
        services and counseling (sec. 759)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to begin action to integrate into 
certain surveys administered by the Department of Defense 
questions designed to obtain information on the experiences of 
service women with family planning and counseling.

Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families of members of 
        reserve components called to Active Duty and elimination of 
        certain charges for such families (sec. 760)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
to complete an assessment of the extent to which families of 
members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving 
on Active Duty, pursuant to a call to or order to Active Duty 
for a period of more than 30 days, experience difficulties in 
transitioning from health care arrangements relied upon when 
the member is not in such an Active-Duty status to health 
benefits under the TRICARE program. Within 180 days after 
completing the assessment, the Secretary shall submit a report 
detailing the results of the assessment to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
This provision would also amend section 1079(h)(4)(C)(ii) of 
title 10, United States Code, to expand the authority of the 
Secretary to eliminate balance billing for families of members 
of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving on Active 
Duty.

Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices at military 
        treatment facilities of pharmaceutical agents for treatment of 
        post-traumatic stress (sec. 761)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
to: (1) conduct a comprehensive review of the prescribing 
practices at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
agents for the treatment of post-traumatic stress (PTS); (2) 
implement a process or processes to monitor the prescribing 
practices at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
agents discouraged from use under the clinical practice 
guideline for management for PTS published by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); (3) 
implement a plan to address any deviations from that guideline 
in the prescribing practices of pharmaceutical agents for 
management of PTS; and (4) implement a plan to address any 
instances where benzodiazepines and opioids are concurrently 
prescribed.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
lacks a uniform process to review and monitor prescribing 
practices for the treatment of PTS at military treatment 
facilities. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report highlighted the Department of the Army's failure to 
monitor, on an ongoing basis, the prescribing of medications to 
treat PTS. Since the GAO report only studied prescribing 
policies and procedures of the Army's health care providers, 
the committee is unaware of the extent to which this shortfall 
may extend to the other Services. Without ongoing monitoring of 
the prescribing of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines to 
servicemembers with PTS, the Services may be unable to identify 
and address prescribing practices inconsistent with the DOD/VA 
clinical practice guideline.

Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for 
        children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 762)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
report setting forth a plan of the Department to improve 
pediatric care and related services for children of members of 
the Armed Forces.

Comptroller General report on health care delivery and waste in 
        military health system (sec. 763)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States, within 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and at least annually 
thereafter for 4 years, to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a 
report assessing and identifying potential waste and 
inefficiency relating to the delivery of health care within the 
military health system.

                       Items of Special Interest


Cancer research programs

    The Department of Defense must ensure that research funded 
through various peer-reviewed cancer research programs 
primarily focus on cancers of significance to military 
populations. In support of this effort, the committee believes 
the Department should further promote collaborative research 
between Department of Defense researchers and non-military 
research institutions on these cancer research programs. These 
collaborations could leverage the research experience, 
knowledge, and infrastructure of civilian research partners and 
lead to greater advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and 
treatment of cancers important to maintaining the health of 
servicemembers. The committee directs the Department to 
prioritize coordination with non-military research institutions 
that are designated centers of excellence in cancer research by 
the National Institutes of Health.

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

    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
ensure that the Department has the capability to transport and 
treat military personnel who are exposed to and may become 
infected with a highly infectious emerging disease. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a letter 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, not later than September 1, 2016, 
describing the Department's plan for: (1) transportation and 
treatment of military personnel exposed to highly infectious 
emerging diseases; and (2) training of medical personnel 
involved in the treatment and transportation of servicemembers 
with highly infectious emerging diseases.

Chronic pain 

    The committee recognizes the considerable human and 
economic impact of chronic pain on servicemembers, as well as 
the current lack of scientific evidence on both the short- and 
long-term safety and efficacy of many chronic pain treatments. 
Further, the committee notes that there is an urgent need to 
identify, research, and develop safe, effective drug and non-
drug therapies that can replace the use of addictive 
medications in the treatment of chronic pain. The committee 
recognizes the Department of Defense's initial steps to 
generate the necessary evidence base to inform the safe, 
effective management of chronic pain in developing the Pain 
Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry (PASTOR). 
However, the committee remains concerned with the Department's 
progress in implementing PASTOR across the Military Health 
System (MHS). The Committee directs the Department to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, not later than September 6, 2016, a report 
describing the Department's plan to implement PASTOR across the 
MHS.

Collar technology

    The committee remains concerned about servicemembers 
sustaining traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in training and in 
combat. Although research, rehabilitation, and treatment 
continues for those servicemembers who sustain TBI, the 
committee recommends that the Department of Defense explore new 
technologies and equipment that may help either to prevent or 
reduce the incidence of TBI. The committee is aware of 
innovative ``collar technology'' that has shown promise in 
greatly reducing the occurrence of TBI in athletic and animal 
testing. This technology improves blood flow in the brain, 
which serves to cushion and protect the brain against an impact 
to the skull. The committee encourages the Department to study 
this new technology.

Comptroller General report on military health professional recruitment

    The military health system faces numerous challenges as it 
strives to deliver quality health care, including recruitment 
of health care professionals in an increasingly competitive 
civilian job market and a projected nationwide shortage of 
certain health care professionals. The Department of Defense 
(DOD) has two primary sources for accessing medical 
professionals into its officer corps--health professions 
scholarships for education and training in civilian 
institutions and direct provision of education and training at 
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
(USUHS). For fiscal year 2017, DOD has requested almost $275.0 
million for its pre-commissioning health professions 
scholarship program and over $242.0 million for funding USUHS. 
Medical officers graduating from USUHS serve an average of 14 
years following completion of residency training while medical 
officers graduating from civilian institutions serve an average 
of seven years after residency training. DOD also offers 
bonuses and special pays for healthcare professionals, which 
vary by specialty. The actual effectiveness of DOD's current 
health professions accession and retention tools, in terms of 
cost and recruitment effectiveness, remains uncertain to the 
committee.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a thorough review of the 
recruitment and retention of health care professionals and to 
provide preliminary observations by February 27, 2017, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. Subsequently, the Comptroller General shall 
provide a full report to the same committees at a date agreed 
upon at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review shall 
address, at a minimum, the following: (1) an assessment of the 
cost and benefits of DOD's programs and policies for accessing 
and retaining military health care providers; and (2) an 
evaluation to determine whether DOD has developed a plan to 
address the potential shortage of health care professionals, 
such as physicians, dentists, nurses, and mental health 
providers, and to ensure an adequate pipeline of fully trained 
military medical personnel.

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

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) TRICARE managed care support contracts 
acquisition strategy and program administration requirements to 
include the Department's efforts to identify and incorporate 
best practices to improve the overall cost efficiency and 
quality of health care delivery. This review should include the 
identification of any incentives or barriers that affect the 
Department's ability to provide efficient and effective health 
care services.
    The Comptroller General shall provide preliminary 
observations not later than 9 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the 
Comptroller General shall provide a full report to the same 
committees at a date agreed upon at the time of the preliminary 
briefing. The review shall address, at a minimum, the 
following: (1) the extent to which DOD has made efforts to 
streamline the acquisition process and reduce the life cycle 
costs of its managed care support contracts, including the 
identification and use of industry best practices, if 
applicable; (2) incentives and barriers that may affect the 
efficiency and cost effectiveness of DOD's acquisition 
strategy; (3) the extent to which DOD has made efforts to 
modify program administration requirements to improve outcomes 
such as beneficiaries' health outcomes and satisfaction, as 
well as any cost efficiencies associated with health care 
delivery, including the identification and use of industry best 
practices, if applicable; and (4) incentives and barriers that 
may affect DOD's health care delivery outcomes.

Dental implants

    The Committee is aware of efficient, effective endosseous 
implant technologies available to serve Active-Duty 
servicemembers who may require fixed or removable dental 
prostheses. The use of these innovative technologies, combined 
with a renewed effort to provide research-based specific 
guidance with respect to less invasive practices, better 
patient outcomes, notable cost savings, and less aftercare, 
could lead to better, more efficient dental implant care 
practices.
    The Committee is concerned that the current guidelines and 
evaluation criteria used by the military departments may not 
allow for consideration of more advanced dental implant 
technologies that could provide measurable benefit to 
servicemembers. The committee encourages the military 
departments to consider the best available dental implant and 
non-metallic restorative options for service men and women and 
to ensure that current guidance and requirements allow for the 
evaluation of the latest dental implant technologies to meet 
the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Department of Defense tobacco policy

    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Secretary of 
Defense's 2016 policy memorandum, ``Department of Defense 
Tobacco Policy,'' which updated existing tobacco use policy and 
described efforts to curb tobacco use and reduce its harmful 
effects in the military. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, and the 
Institute of Medicine, members of the military have higher 
rates of tobacco use than the civilian population, particularly 
among military personnel who have been deployed. Further, the 
Secretary's memorandum notes that about 38 percent of current 
military smokers initiated tobacco use following enlistment. 
The Department estimates that the impact of tobacco use in the 
military population costs over $1.6 billion per year in lost 
productivity. In an effort to improve the health and fitness of 
members of the Armed Forces, the Department's policy restricts 
tobacco use to designated areas, eliminates discounted prices 
on tobacco products at military exchanges, improves tobacco 
education, and improves smoke-free housing options. The 
Committee directs the Department of Defense to fully implement 
this guidance across the military Services.

Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial

    The committee is aware that the successful trial of 
military courts-martial frequently requires expert support from 
behavioral science professionals. An August 17, 2015, 
information paper from the Defense Health Agency revealed that 
the Center for Forensic Behavioral Sciences (CFBS) is the only 
dedicated capability within the Department of Defense (DOD) 
offering specialized forensic behavioral science evaluations 
and consultations in support of the military justice system. 
The CFBS also supports military criminal investigative 
organizations, the intelligence community, and military 
commanders around the world. The CFBS is the only accredited 
fellowship program within DOD for forensic psychiatry and 
forensic psychology. The information paper disclosed the CFSB 
is currently understaffed and this staffing level resulted in 
CFBS's ability to support only about 100 of 366 referrals from 
across DOD, with 69 percent of these referrals involving sexual 
assault offenses. Private civilian forensic experts ultimately 
met the demand by the Services at substantially increased cost 
to DOD.
    The committee is concerned that the existing organizational 
and budget model for the CFBS is inadequate to address the 
demand for these critical services. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to: (1) review the current staffing, 
budget, and resourcing of the CFBS; (2) evaluate the 
recommendations provided in the DHA's information paper; and 
(3) report the result of that review to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
September 30, 2016.

Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies

    The committee notes that both hospital associated 
infections (HAIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs) continue 
to be a major, yet preventable, threat to the safety of 
patients and health care workers in both civilian and military 
hospitals. Multiple published, peer-reviewed studies have shown 
that full spectrum ultraviolet (UV) technologies reduce both 
HAI and SSI rates in the health care environment. In addition 
to routine environmental disinfection to support patient and 
staff safety, environmentally friendly UV technologies can be 
deployed as a biodefense mitigation strategy.
    The committee is aware that over 40 federal health care 
organizations have acquired full spectrum UV technologies for 
environmental disinfection and for disaster preparedness. The 
committee encourages the Department of Defense to investigate 
full spectrum UV technologies to support patient and staff 
safety through routine disinfection of hospital environmental 
surfaces and as a mitigation strategy in response to an 
outbreak of biological contamination.

Hearing restoration research

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
research to date on auditory and vestibular injuries among 
servicemembers. Hearing and balance are critical elements of 
military medical readiness. Servicemembers are exposed to 
hazardous noise levels and blast exposure during training and 
combat that result in auditory and vestibular system injuries 
leading to symptoms including hearing loss, persistent 
tinnitus, and balance problems. These symptoms may impede 
communication, reduce situational awareness, hinder threat 
detection, and otherwise impair personnel safety and mission 
effectiveness.
    The committee notes that hearing loss and auditory injuries 
in the military continue to rise and are some of the top 
occupational injuries for servicemembers. According to the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, tinnitus and hearing loss 
were the most prevalent service-connected disabilities among 
new veterans disability compensation beneficiaries in fiscal 
year 2014, bringing the total number of veterans receiving 
compensation for auditory disabilities to 2.4 million according 
to the most recent data.
    The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) established the 
Department of Defense Hearing Center of Excellence, focused on 
the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of 
hearing loss and auditory system injury. Despite the 
establishment of the Hearing Center of Excellence, research 
funding for auditory and vestibular injuries and disorders 
remains limited. The committee is concerned that current 
research and development funding may be inadequate to address 
the magnitude of this challenge, which to date has resulted in 
reduced medical readiness among servicemembers, as well as high 
costs to the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
Department to prioritize funding for hearing restoration 
research and consider establishing a research program dedicated 
to this field, especially regenerative strategies and other 
options that may reduce the burden of this disability on 
servicemembers.

Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for 
        emerging health care services and supplies

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report, by September 30, 2016, to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 
implementation of the Department's authority for provisional 
TRICARE coverage for emerging health care services and supplies 
pursuant to section 1079(c) of title 10, United States Code. 
The report shall describe the following: (1) the actions 
undertaken to implement the authority to provide provisional 
TRICARE coverage for emerging health care services and 
supplies; (2) the services and supplies for which the 
Department has granted provisional TRICARE coverage; (3) the 
rationale, if any, for implementation of demonstration projects 
for TRICARE coverage of such services and supplies in lieu of 
granting provisional TRICARE coverage; and (4) the impact that 
implementation of provisional TRICARE coverage authority has 
had on access to and provider reimbursement for services and 
supplies, such as molecular pathology laboratory developed 
tests, as compared to non-coverage of those services and 
supplies.

Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes

    In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs deployed 
advanced, proven lower limb prosthetic digital health 
technology to provide real-world data documenting activity in 
the community for veterans with lower limb prostheses. By 
documenting how patients with limb loss function with their 
prosthetic devices, this digital health technology offers new 
opportunities to improve prosthetic outcomes, increase 
activity, and improve the quality of life for those who have 
lost limbs. Currently, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not 
provided this technology to servicemembers who have lost lower 
limbs or to veterans who receive prosthetic care from DOD. The 
committee encourages DOD to utilize technology that captures 
real-world activity data for amputees to improve prosthetic 
outcomes for servicemembers and veterans.

Maternity care

    The committee recognizes the importance of medical support 
contracts in providing a network of maternity care providers 
for TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to review TRICARE reimbursement rates for the 
provision of maternity care in non-contiguous states and 
territories of the United States and to ensure a strong network 
of maternity care providers in those isolated and remote 
locations.

Medical operations in austere environments

    The committee recognizes significant efforts the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has undertaken to improve the delivery of 
medical care in austere environments, including emergency and 
trauma care for the warfighter, as well as countering threats 
posed by bioterrorism and infectious disease outbreaks. In 
recent years, infectious diseases such as Ebola, Zika, Malaria, 
Dengue, and Chikungunya, have highlighted the potential 
military role in responding to naturally occurring biological 
threats. Not only do these diseases pose a significant risk to 
the homeland, but they may also limit the strategic access and 
operational effectiveness of forward deployed forces. 
Meanwhile, emergency and trauma care for warfighters often 
takes place under less than ideal conditions.
    The committee notes that DOD must continue to maintain and 
modernize its ability to quickly and safely provide medical 
care in austere environments. This includes the ability to 
maintain sterile conditions and to control, inactivate, and 
dispose of hazardous medical and biological waste. The 
committee notes that commonly used burn pits and incinerators 
may not effectively neutralize chemical, biological, or 
radioactive agents, risking environmental contamination and 
further transmission. The committee encourages the Department 
to assess cost-effective, alternative solutions for mobile 
medical and biological waste disposal. The committee further 
encourages the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs to identify cost-effective, mobile options to enhance 
theatre distribution of medical facilities, including 
containerized platforms to expand combat surgical and 
infectious disease treatment capabilities.

Online patient portal

    In recognizing the importance of greater participation of 
TRICARE beneficiaries in managing their health, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to create an online patient 
portal to allow beneficiaries to: (1) track scheduled medical 
and dental appointments; (2) obtain laboratory test results; 
(3) request prescription refills; (4) track and manage 
participation in wellness programs; and (5) communicate with 
their physicians or dentists. This patient portal should be 
fully integrated with the electronic health record of the 
Department of Defense.

Prescription Drug Abuse

    The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in 
prescription drug abuse among servicemembers and their family 
members. In reforming the military health care system, the 
committee recognizes that there is a move to improve health 
outcomes and enhance healthcare value. The committee expects 
that the Department will be mindful of the growing prescription 
drug epidemic in making this transformation and will ensure 
that any new health delivery system in the military health 
system will take into account potential abuse of opioid drugs.
    The committee urges the Department to continue research on 
alternative treatments for chronic pain and ensure that all 
health care providers receive education and training on pain 
management and safe opioid prescribing guidelines. In addition, 
the committee urges the Department to implement evidence-based 
prevention and treatment interventions to address prescription 
drug abuse and to ensure that all health care providers receive 
education and training on pain management and safe opioid 
prescribing guidelines.

Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing

    In 2007, the Department of Defense created the 
Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing (PHRAMS) 
to assess the military health system's (MHS) current and future 
mental health provider staffing needs. A 2015 report by the 
Comptroller General of the United States found that the 
military Services are either not using PHRAMS to assess their 
mental health provider staffing needs or are supplementing 
PHRAMS with Service-specific methods to accommodate for 
shortcomings in the model. The same report found that the Navy 
and the Air Force do not track needs for mental health provider 
staffing but rather ``submit the number of authorized mental 
health provider positions for both the requirements and 
authorizations sections'' of their quarterly reports to the 
Defense Health Agency (DHA).
    The committee is concerned that the lack of accurate 
information from the military Services on mental health 
provider staffing requirements undermines efforts by the DHA to 
assess the need for mental health providers across the MHS and 
congressional oversight thereof. Therefore, the committee 
directs the military departments and the National Capital 
Region (NCR) Medical Directorate to include estimated mental 
health provider staffing needs generated through PHRAMS in 
their quarterly mental health staffing reports to the DHA. The 
committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Health Affairs to make available to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives all 
past and future quarterly mental health staffing reports from 
the military Services and the NCR Medical Directorate.
    Given the Department's ongoing and considerable investment 
in developing and updating PHRAMS, it is important that the 
model provide value to the military Services. As such, the 
committee directs the service secretaries of each of the 
military departments as well as the director of the NCR Medical 
Directorate to review and report on the following: (1) their 
current method for assessing mental health provider staffing 
needs; (2) the utility of the PHRAMS model to their Service or 
organization; and (3) any Service- or organization-specific 
methods they use or recommend to improve PHRAMS' utility. These 
reports should be provided to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 
November 1, 2016.

Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military hospital and 
        surgical environments

    Infections resulting from antibiotic-resistant bacteria 
present a common risk for patients with chronic non-healing 
wounds, for burn victims, and for those patients undergoing 
invasive surgery. These serious infections lead to higher rates 
of morbidity and mortality, ultimately leading to higher health 
care costs. Despite the emergence of antibiotic resistance, the 
serious side effects of systemic antibiotics, and insufficient 
tissue penetration of systemic antibiotics as a result of 
impaired blood supply to a wound or burn site, systemic 
antibiotic treatment currently remains the therapy of choice to 
prevent infections because of the lack of a suitable topical 
therapeutic alternative. Studies show that silicate-based 
nanoparticle technology, whether administered topically or 
intravenously, reduces the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant 
bacteria. Accordingly, the committee urges the U.S. Army 
Institute of Surgical Research to assess such technology, and 
in coordination with the Defense Health Agency, report such 
findings to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Health Affairs).

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

    The Committee notes that providing effective behavioral 
health and suicide prevention programs is essential to the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces and the 
stability of military families. The availability of these 
services varies widely for servicemembers, depending on their 
location and status in either the active or reserve component. 
The committee believes that determining the most efficient and 
effective model for the delivery of these services to these 
distinct populations is in the best interests of the 
servicemembers and the Department of Defense.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, not later than October 1, 2016, a 
report detailing the present state of behavioral health 
services and suicide prevention programs provided by the 
Department to servicemembers in the reserve component to 
include: (1) information regarding which programs have been 
determined to be the most effective based on accepted metrics 
for performance; (2) an assessment of any disparity of services 
available between members of the active component and reserve 
component members; and (3) any recommendations for improving 
the delivery of these services in order to effectively and 
efficiently provide for the specific needs of servicemembers in 
the reserve component.

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program

    The committee remains concerned about beneficiaries' access 
to care for services provided under the TRICARE Comprehensive 
Autism Care Demonstration program. Beginning not later than 
July 1, 2016, and continuing through the duration of the 
demonstration program, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide quarterly reports, by letter, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on access to care and the effectiveness of care 
among military dependents participating in the program. The 
Secretary shall report, at a minimum, the following information 
by state: (1) the number of new referrals for services under 
the program; (2) the number of total beneficiaries enrolled in 
the program; 3) the average wait-time from time of referral to 
the first appointment for services under the program; (3) the 
number of providers accepting new patients under the program; 
(4) the number of providers who no longer accept new patients 
for services under the program; (5) the average number of 
treatment sessions required by beneficiaries; and (6) the 
health-related outcomes for beneficiaries under the program. 
This provision would improve data reporting on the 
demonstration program and ensure that military dependents with 
autism spectrum disorder have timely access to effective care.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy And Management

Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to better integrate 
and conform the provision with the rapid acquisition 
authorities established in section 804 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Authority for temporary service of Principal Military Deputies to the 
        Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for 
        acquisition as acting Assistant Secretaries (sec. 802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3016(b)(5)(B), 5016(b)(4)(B), and 8016(b)(4)(B) of 
title 10, United States Code, to allow Principal Military 
Deputies to serve in an acting capacity if there is a vacancy 
in the position of the Service Acquisition Executive.
Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, and would repeal 
section 2434 of title 10, United States Code, in order to 
remove the ambiguity concerning the roles and responsibilities 
for the conduct of independent cost estimates (ICE's) by 
designating the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) to ensure standards are met. Currently there 
is confusion and ambiguity because ICEs are referenced in two 
different locations of title 10, which this provision would 
rectify. The provision would ensure that the Secretary of 
Defense is only approving major defense acquisition programs 
after reviewing a full life-cycle cost estimate conducted by an 
independent entity that may also provide cost-saving and risk-
reducing alternative courses of action.
Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to revise the Department of Defense 
Instruction 5000.74, dated January 6, 2016. The Secretary would 
be required to provide more guidance as to how the acquisition 
community should address the changing nature of technology and 
services markets and also perform a review of the instructions' 
current categories of services acquisition and make changes as 
necessary. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense would be 
required to issue new guidance to address the training and 
development of the acquisition workforce, particularly those 
involved in the acquisition of services.
Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver authority to 
        acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 805)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (d) of section 806 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
provide for a notification to Congress not later than ten days 
after the any use of the waiver authority to acquire vital 
national security capabilities outlined earlier in section 806.
Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for 
        conversion of Department of Defense functions to performance by 
        contractors (sec. 806)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

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

Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, and establish an 
independent board chaired by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to prescribe, amend, and rescind 
cost accounting standards as they affect operations at the 
Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that the 
current cost accounting standards favor incumbent defense 
contractors and limit competition by serving as a barrier to 
participation by non-traditional, small business, and 
commercial contractors. To level the competitive playing field 
to access new sources of innovation it is in the government's 
interest to adopt more commercial ways of contracting, 
accounting, and oversight.
    The provision requires that cost accounting standards 
developed shall to the maximum extent practicable align with 
Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles, thereby 
minimizing the requirement for government-unique cost 
accounting systems. The provision would also ensure that 
managerial cost accounting and activity based accounting 
structures derived from cost accounting standards are applied 
to the financial operations of the Department of Defense. The 
committee is disappointed that the Federal Cost Accounting 
Standards Board does not currently have a quorum of members and 
has not met in over three years. Due to this situation, it is 
doubtful that any credible reform will emanate out of this 
board in the future and the committee believes that a DOD board 
will be better suited to meet national security needs.
Increased micro-purchase threshold applicable to Department of Defense 
        procurements (sec. 812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
micro-purchase threshold for Department of Defense activities 
at $5,000.
Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
definition of competition and the role of the prime contractor 
in determining whether a subcontract meets the competitive or 
commercial test under the section.
Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses as allowable 
        independent research and development costs on certain contracts 
        (sec. 814)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify in 
what circumstances that independent research and development 
costs are considered fair, reasonable, and allowable expenses 
on Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. The provision would 
authorize that up to 5 percent of the total amount of the work 
performed by a contractor on procurement and research, 
development, test, and evaluation activities during the 
preceding fiscal year could be spent on qualified independent 
research and development (IR&D;) and be determined fair and 
reasonable by the Department.
    With this provision the committee intends that 
nontraditional contractors and those contractors who only 
operate on a fixed-price contractual basis with commercial 
accounting systems will be eligible to conduct independent 
research and development on behalf of the Department without 
triggering the need for government unique oversight 
requirements. There should be limited or no change for the 
process to reimburse traditional contractors for IR&D; whose 
accounting systems conform to the Cost Accounting System 
standards.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to modify 
the acquisition process to ensure that any allowable costs for 
bid and proposal costs are reduced to the maximum extent 
practicable. The committee is concerned that DOD requirements, 
rules and regulations are driving contractors to increase bid 
and proposal costs to unsustainable levels that ultimately DOD 
pays for in contractor overhead. The committee is also 
concerned that the ability to be reimbursed for these large 
costs puts traditional defense contractors at a competitive 
advantage over a non-traditional contractor who does not 
receive reimbursement for these costs.
Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the Government as 
        a factor in the evaluation of proposals for certain multiple-
        award task or delivery order contracts (sec. 815)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to provide 
an exception to the existing statutory requirement to include 
cost or price to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor 
that must be considered in the evaluation of proposals for all 
contracts. The provision would only apply to multiple award 
task or delivery order contracts to buy services and the 
Department would then appropriately focus on price when 
individual task orders are issued and competed. The committee 
agrees with the Department's assessment that the evaluation of 
price as a source selection factor for initial contract awards 
on multiple award task or delivery order contracts adds limited 
value. This provision will allow the Department to be able to 
better focus on non-price factors in source selection that will 
result in more meaningful distinctions between offerors being 
made resulting in better value for the taxpayer.
Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual actions (sec. 816)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2326 of title 10, United States Code, to revise 
policies regarding undefinitized contractual actions (UCAs). 
The committee is concerned that over the past decade the use of 
UCAs by the services and defense agencies has grown 
significantly while the speed at which these UCAs are 
definitized has lagged. To address this situation, the 
provision would: (1) require a written determination by senior 
officials to extend a UCA beyond 90 days; (2) require UCAs to 
be awarded on a fixed price level of effort basis; and (3) 
extend the 180 day definitization requirement to contracts in 
support of Foreign Military Sales cases.
    The committee has been made aware of certain practices by 
the services and defense agencies to get around the statutory 
restrictions on UCAs by ``restarting'' the 180 day clock 
whenever a contract modification is made and expects these 
modifications to be kept to a minimum. The committee will 
continue to review whether UCAs serve as barriers to the use of 
non-traditional contractors and further the culture of a 
reliance on cost contracts and non-value added unique 
government oversight requirements. If this is found to be the 
case, the committee will need to consider further restrictions 
on the use of UCAs by the Department.
Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
definition of a non-traditional contractor. To address the 
definition of entity which was intended to be interpreted as 
allowing specific business units within a corporation to be 
considered as a non-traditional contractor. The Committee would 
expect that business units shall be defined by the Department 
by unique Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number or a 
comparable identifier that is widely accepted as being able to 
delineate business units within a larger corporate or private 
unit.
Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section that would codify the authority to conduct small 
business subcontracting plans. The Government Accountability 
(GAO) recently reported to the committee that the Test Program 
for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting 
Plans has resulted in the avoidance of millions of dollars in 
administrative costs and recommended that the program be made 
permanent. This provision would implement GAO's recommendation.
Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2304c(e) of title 10, United States Code, that would 
prohibit task and delivery protests if the Secretary of Defense 
has appointed an ombudsman in accordance with section 2304c(f) 
of title 10, United States Code to review complaints related to 
task order and delivery contracts.
Modified data collection requirements applicable to procurement of 
        services (sec. 820)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
applicability of the contractor inventory requirement to staff 
augmentation contracts and to reduce data collection and 
unnecessary reporting requirements.
    The committee notes that the RAND corporation is undergoing 
a review mandated by section 807 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
examine and report to the committee the current approach taken 
by the Department of Defense to comply with section 2330(a) of 
title 10, United States Code. The committee has been briefed by 
RAND and the Department of Defense on preliminary findings 
during this ongoing reporting process, the results of which 
will be released in the summer of 2016. The committee will 
takes those results into consideration during the conference 
process of this Act so as to best capture recommendations to 
modify the current contractor inventory requirement.
Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section to outline the role of the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) in bid protests on certain contracts with the 
Department of Defense. The provision would require a large 
contractor filing a bid protest on a defense contract with GAO 
to cover the cost of processing the protest if all of the 
elements in the protest are denied in an opinion issued by GAO. 
The provision would also impose a withhold on payments above 
incurred costs on any bridge or temporary contract to an 
incumbent contractor who submits a protest and that protest 
results in the issuance of a bridge or temporary contract. The 
distribution of this withhold would be dependent on the outcome 
of the protest.
Report on bid protests (sec. 822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to contract with a research entity to 
carry out a comprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of 
bid protests on Department of Defense acquisitions. The report 
is due to the congressional defense committees 1 year after the 
enactment of this Act.
Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, munitions, and 
        technologies manufactured and developed under cooperative 
        research and development agreements as use of competitive 
        procedures (sec. 823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2350a(g) of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
paragraph to clarify that the general solicitation and testing 
competitive procedures used under the program are competitive 
procedures under chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code.
Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2359b(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to expand 
the scope of the defense acquisition challenge program to 
include alternatives to existing acquisition programs and to 
clarify that the general solicitation competitive procedures 
used under the program are competitive procedures under chapter 
137 of title 10, United States Code.
Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process 
        (sec. 825)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to limit the use of lowest price 
technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection criteria in 
circumstances that would potentially deny the Department the 
benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source 
selection process. The Department would be required to only use 
LPTA criteria in specified circumstances and avoid to the 
maximum extent practicable for the procurement of knowledge-
based professional services such as information technology 
services. Additionally, this provision would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees detailing instances for which LPTA source 
selection criteria was used annually for the next 3 years.
Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretary of each military department and the head of each of 
the defense agencies to pay a penalty for the use of cost-type 
contracts in certain cases that are awarded in fiscal year 2018 
through fiscal year 2021. The penalty would equal 2 percent of 
obligated funds in the case of new contracts using procurement 
funds or 1 percent in the case of new contracts using research, 
development, test, and evaluation funds, with some limited 
exceptions.
    The committee is frustrated by the continuous dependence of 
the Department of Defense on the use of cost type contracts. 
While there are some circumstances where cost-type contracts 
may be appropriate, the Department has over the years expanded 
the use of these types of contracts as a forcing mechanism to 
achieve absolute certainty in visibility over contractor costs. 
While this visibility has enabled the Department the ability to 
achieve some narrow cost reductions on certain contracts, it 
has come at the cost of reduced competition and innovation. The 
effect of the overuse of cost-type contracts is the narrowing 
of the industrial base as commercial firms make a choice not to 
invest in the unique accounting and financial systems necessary 
to compete for a cost contract. This expensive barrier to entry 
has resulted in a smaller pool of defense unique companies that 
can comply with government unique requirements necessary to 
execute a cost contract. Commercial companies that choose not 
to invest in expensive government unique accounting systems are 
effectively precluded from doing business with the Department 
when DOD chooses to use cost contracts. This provision, in 
combination with the preference for fixed-price contracts in a 
separate section of this Act, is designed to limit the use of 
cost contracts in the future and focus the Department on 
achieving greater value and innovation through accessing 
commercial, non-traditional, and small business contractors 
that are nimble enough to operate in a fixed-price environment.
    The committee notes that there are some high risk, high 
reward research activities where a cost contract would still 
represent an appropriate allocation of risk between the 
government and contractor. For example, lead ships in new ship 
classes have been exempted from the cost penalty and science 
and technology spending will only be subject to the penalty 
beginning in fiscal year 2019. While the committee has not 
mandated a complete ban on cost contracting this provision is 
designed to set up incentives that limit its use to appropriate 
exceptional cases. The committee believes that through the 
course of this pilot period, the Department can develop and 
implement training and guidance, based on best commercial 
practice, to establish fixed price contract vehicles with 
enough options and flexibility that they can serve important 
high technology defense mission needs for research and 
development purposes. The committee looks forward to working 
with the Department to identify and define the appropriate set 
of cases for use of cost contracts for development, and 
establish rational policies that will protect government 
interests, while still meeting the concerns of technology 
companies.
Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827)
    The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to establish 
a preference for fixed-price contracts, including fixed-price 
incentive fee contracts, in the determination of contract type 
and establish an approval mechanism for the use of cost type 
contracts over $5.0 million in value. While the committee 
understands the flexibility and advantages inherent in a fixed-
price incentive contract, it is concerned that these contracts 
could evolve to look more like a cost-type contract. The 
Department needs to be vigilant in the proper usage of fixed-
price incentive contracts by focusing incentives on achievable 
outcomes and not using these contracts as a gateway to trigger 
government-unique data and accounting system requirements.
Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military 
        sales (sec. 828)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to require the 
use of firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military sales 
not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 
Additionally, this provision would grant the Secretary waiver 
authority if the Secretary determines that a different type of 
contract is in the best interest of the United States 
taxpayers.
Preference for performance-based contractual payments (sec. 829)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2307(b) of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
preference for performance-based payments to contractors. The 
committee is disappointed in the movement of the Department to 
a greater reliance on cost-type contracts, progress payments, 
and the need for incurred cost audits performed by the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency that is currently woefully behind in many 
of its audit objectives. It was a desire to focus on achieving 
better outcomes for the taxpayer and reduce the unnecessary 
bureaucracy and compliance burden that Congress established in 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 
103-355) the option of using a more commercial payments process 
known as performance based payments. These payments would be 
targeted against achievable goals and metrics rather than 
merely the expenditure of dollars associated with progress 
payments. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation in FAR 
32.1001 establishes performance based payments as the preferred 
Government financing mechanism, the Department has become even 
more focused on measuring cost as an output rather than 
focusing on measuring outcomes for the taxpayer and rewarding 
contractors for meeting those performance objectives. This 
provision re-establishes the policy objective.
Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2332 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Defense Acquisition University to develop and implement a 
training program for Department of Defense acquisition 
personnel on share-in-savings contracts not later than 180 days 
after the enactment of this Act.
Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the defense 
        against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, biological, 
        chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 829B)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United State Code, to add a new 
section that would grant the Secretary of Defense special 
emergency procurement authority for property or services that 
would facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, 
nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack against 
the United States.
Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price technically 
        acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
prohibit the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced 
technically acceptable (LPTA) contracting methods for the 
procurement of personal protective equipment where the level of 
quality needed or the failure of the item could result in 
combat casualties; and (2) establish a preference for best 
value contracting methods when procuring such equipment.
    The committee is concerned that an overarching bias towards 
reducing prices paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the 
exclusion of other factors could result in DOD buying low cost 
products that have the potential to negatively impact the 
safety of U.S. troops. This could be a particular problem with 
the quality of personal protective equipment such as helmets, 
body armor, eye protection, and other similar individual 
equipment issued to U.S. military personnel. While LPTA and 
reverse auction contracting techniques are appropriate for some 
type of purchases, the committee believes that lowest price is 
not always the best strategy when quality and innovation are 
needed. In these cases, the committee believes a best value 
acquisition approach is more appropriate.
Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent 
        descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that Department of Defense 
contract language does not specify a brand name in 
solicitations unless justification for such a specification is 
provided and approved in accordance with section 2304(f) of 
title 10, United States Code.
Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 829E)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) amend 
title 10, United States Code, to sunset sections 2212, 2220, 
2228, 2304e, 2421 by September 30, 2018; (2) amend title 10, 
United States Code, to sunset section 1706 by September 30, 
2019; and (3) repeal sections 2245a, 2225, 2302c, 2378, 2387 of 
title 10, United States Code.
Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
an award to recognize defense acquisition programs and 
acquisition professionals that make the best use of 
flexibilities and those authorities granted in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation and Department of Defense Instruction 
5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System) meant to 
increase the efficiency of programs. This award would encourage 
innovation among defense acquisition professionals for their 
work to simplify procedures, use of commercial contracting 
approaches, developing public private partnership agreements, 
and other inventive program management techniques.
Products and services purchased through contracting program for firms 
        that hire the severely disabled (sec. 829G)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from arranging contracts through 
AbilityOne, or its central non-profit agency, SourceAmerica, 
and instead require the Secretary to contract directly with 
qualified nonprofit agencies for the severely disabled until 
the Department of Defense Inspector General certifies that: (1) 
the internal controls and financial management systems of 
AbilityOne and SourceAmerica are sufficient to protect the 
Department of Defense against fraud, waste and abuse; (2) there 
are fair opportunities for qualified nonprofit agencies for the 
severely disabled to compete for DOD contracts under the 
procurement list; and (3) pass-through contracts to contractors 
who are not qualified nonprofit agencies are limited to the 
maximum extent practicable to providing services and supplies 
necessary for qualified nonprofit agencies to assemble or 
produce a final product for use by the Department of Defense.
    Established by Congress in 1938, the AbilityOne Program is 
a unique public-private structure that connects people who are 
blind or have severe disabilities to jobs that provide products 
and services to the federal government, and is now the single 
largest source of employment for these individuals. The 
AbilityOne Program relies on nearly 600 independent nonprofit 
agencies to provide this employment, assisted by one of two 
Central Nonprofit Agencies (CNAs): the National Industries for 
the Blind and SourceAmerica. The U.S. AbilityOne Commission 
oversees both the CNAs and their affiliated nonprofit agencies 
(NPAs) and is ultimately responsible for the performance of the 
program. Given that federal agencies including the Department 
of Defense--are directed to order certain supplies and services 
from Procurement List maintained by AbilityOne in support of 
this objective, there is a requirement that participating 
vendors--Non-profit Agencies-certify that 75 percent of their 
total direct labor hours are performed by people who are blind 
or severely disabled.
    The committee fully supports the AbilityOne program's 
objective to employ people who are blind and severely disabled. 
Given that DOD spent over $2.3 billion through the program in 
fiscal year 2015, and that DOD funds comprise the majority of 
those spent through the AbilityOne program, the committee is 
very concerned about the lack of transparency and effectiveness 
in vetting vendors and subvendors. The committee notes that in 
2013 GAO recommended enhanced oversight of the AbilityOne 
Program in several areas to promote accountability for program 
effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity. Recent media reports 
have raised allegations of corruption, financial fraud, and 
legal violations with SourceAmerica the central nonprofit 
agency responsible for selecting vendors who employ blind and 
severely disabled. Several federal agency Inspectors General 
are investigating these allegations, however, because 
AbilityOne selection of vendors takes place above the level of 
individual departments and agencies who use AbilityOne, only 
the Comptroller General of the United States--the Government 
Accountability Office--has complete authority to audit program 
management and governance.
    Due to the volume of DOD spending through the AbilityOne 
program, its objectives, its exception to competition, and its 
unique public-private structure, governance, and oversight, and 
given the ongoing investigations, the committee has concerns 
about ensuring the program is managed transparently and with 
integrity. The committee asked the Department of Defense 
Inspector General (IG) to evaluate whether the vendors 
performing the work were meeting requirements for hiring 
severely disabled, but the IG was prevented by AbilityOne from 
accessing the documents necessary to perform the review. The 
committee believes that the current inability for the Defense 
Department IG to verify and validate the proper use of DOD 
expenditures is currently untenable. This provision would 
ensure that DOD contracting officers will contract directly 
with qualified non-profits to select vendors until DOD IG is 
able to certify to Congress that the controls and financial 
management systems at AbilityOne are sufficient to protect the 
Department against waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee has 
received no indication of any problems with the operations of 
the National Industries for the Blind and expects that DOD 
operations with NIB will continue under current practices.
Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces'' 
        to Department of Defense contractors (sec. 829H)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
application of the acquisition regulations mandated by 
Executive Order 13673 to contractors or subcontractors of the 
Department of Defense that have been suspended or debarred as a 
result of the federal labor law violations referenced in the 
Executive Order in effect on May 28, 2015.
Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I)
    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to close out contracts 
entered into prior to fiscal year 2000 without completing 
further reconciliation audits other than those described in 
this section.
Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J)
    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of the Navy authority to close out contracts entered 
into between fiscal years 1974 and 1998 to design, construct, 
repair, or support the construction or repair of Navy 
submarines without completing further reconciliation audits 
other than those described in this section.

 Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
chapter 144A of title 10, United States Code. The committee 
believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not need a 
separate acquisition process for large information technology 
programs and that if these programs (particularly those that 
are national security systems) meet the threshold of a major 
defense acquisition program they should be managed under that 
acquisition pathway tailored where applicable to the specific 
needs of large software development programs under the DOD 5000 
series regulations. For business information technology systems 
the requirements of section 2222 of title 10, United State 
Code, would apply.

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 832)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, that would revise 
the definition of a major defense acquisition program to 
exclude fixed-price prototypes not planned as part of an 
existing major defense acquisition programs and those programs 
or projects developed under the rapid fielding or rapid 
prototyping acquisition pathway authorized under section 804 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92).

Acquisition strategy (sec. 833)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2431a of title 10, United States Code to require that 
the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition 
program must also consider a comprehensive sustainment strategy 
which includes all aspects of the total life cycle management 
of the weapon system, including product support, logistics, 
product support engineering, supply chain integration, 
maintenance, acquisition logistics, and all aspects of software 
sustainment.

Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
several amendments to improve life cycle cost controls. First, 
this provision would amend section 804(c)(3) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), to require rapid fielding guidance from the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to include direction on a process for identifying and 
exploiting opportunities to use the rapid fielding pathway to 
reduce total ownership costs. Secondly, this provision would 
amend section 805(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA) to include life cycle cost 
management as a procedure that the Secretary of Defense should 
establish for alternative acquisition pathways to meet national 
security needs. Thirdly, this provision would amend section 
833(e) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016 to require the 
Secretary to also issue guidance on policies to maximize the 
use of fixed-price contracts and the ability to implement 
tradeoffs total cost of ownership, schedule, and performance. 
Finally, this provision would add a new section to chapter 144 
of title 10, United States Code, which would require 
sustainment reviews of acquisition programs 5 years after their 
operational capability--unless the program has failed to 
maintain its availability or reliability threshold or has 
breached its affordability cap before that time.
    Additionally, this provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a commercial operational and support 
saving initiative to insert existing commercial items or 
technology into military legacy programs through rapid 
development and fielding of prototypes in order to improve 
readiness and reduce operations and support costs.

Modification of certain Milestone B certification requirements (sec. 
        835)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2366b(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code to 
eliminate the need for waivers that are regularly submitted to 
the committee for programs that are executed at the beginning 
of the fiscal year but before the future years defense program 
(FYDP) has been submitted, and should receive Milestone B 
certification as long as there is funding in the current FYDP. 
This provision should reduce the number of required waivers and 
therefore reduce unnecessary staff burden.

Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (d) of section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, 
to remove the requirement for disclosure of confidence levels 
for baseline estimates of major defense acquisition programs. 
This provision would require the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation and the Secretary of the military 
department concerned or the head of the defense agency 
concerned, if applicable, to: (1) issue guidance requiring a 
discussion of risk for the acquisition program; (2) ensure the 
required cost estimates are developed based on historical 
actual cost information and that the estimates provide a high 
degree of confidence that the program can be completed without 
a drastic adjustment to the program budget; and (3) that the 
information required by the new guidance on risk be included in 
any decision documentation approving a cost estimate.

Authority to designate increments or blocks of items delivered under 
        major defense acquisition programs as major subprograms for 
        purposes of acquisition reporting (sec. 837)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2430a(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to expand 
the authority to designate increments or blocks of items 
delivered under major defense acquisition programs as major 
subprograms.

Counting of major defense acquisition program subcontracts toward small 
        business goals (sec. 838)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to include a new 
section to include first and second tier subcontracts awarded 
by the Department of Defense (DOD) under major defense 
acquisition programs in the Department's overall count of small 
business goals. Major defense acquisition programs are 
developed by large contractors. Even at the first and second 
tier of subcontracts it is difficult to obtain small business 
participation. Counting small business participation at this 
level toward DOD's top level goal could provide a greater 
incentive for small business participation in these programs.

Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate percentage increase in 
        unit costs (sec. 839)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2433(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that unit costs be calculated in constant dollars a with an 
economy-wide inflation index, such as the Gross Domestic 
Product Price Index.

Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles and munitions 
        above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2308(c) of title 10, United States Code, to waive the 
requirement for the head of an agency to notify congressional 
defense committees of the decision to acquire a higher quantity 
of an end item for tactical missiles and munitions annual 
procurements. The committee notes that most of the Department 
of Defense's (DOD) tactical missile and munitions program are 
currently below their approved inventory objectives and are 
current warfighting priorities. The committee also notes that 
the effects of foreign military sales, multi-service 
procurements, Overseas Contingency Operations additions to the 
base budget, and improved manufacturing efficiencies, have 
resulted in DOD being able to procure end items above the 
annual budgeted quantity without required funding above the 
appropriated amount. The committee believes that removing this 
notification requirement would provide needed streamlining and 
lower costs by reducing administrative staffing and unnecessary 
compliance burdens.

Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration program (sec. 
        841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to conduct a multiyear 
contract for multiple defense programs that are produced at 
common facilities at a high rate, and which maximize 
commonality, efficiencies and quality, in order to provide 
maximum benefit and significant savings to the Department of 
Defense (DOD). The committee notes that this pilot has the 
potential to increase savings as compared to the process of 
having separate annual contracts under individual programs to 
purchase such units separately and at lower rates that raise 
costs.

Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 842)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enact a pilot program aimed at 
decreasing the number of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) on 
acquisition programs. The Secretary would be required to select 
one acquisition program from each of the services to determine 
if limiting the number of KPPs to three, at the most, leads to 
operational or programmatic improvements of outcomes.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would further 
enhance the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to adopt an 
open systems approach to defense acquisition. The provision 
would require the Secretary of Defense to implement modular 
open systems architecture in acquisition programs in specified 
mission areas when implementing section 801 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The provision 
would require each multi-service and multi-program mission 
outlined in the provision to have a mission integration manager 
to act as the principal substantive advisor to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff for all aspects of capability integration for the 
mission area.

B-21 bomber development program baseline and cost control (sec. 844)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
specific cost growth thresholds and cost controls for the Air 
Force's B-21 bomber program. The provision would also direct 
the Secretary of the Air Force to submit quarterly program 
performance data to the Comptroller General of the United 
States, who will, in turn, assess the data and provide 
quarterly assessments to the congressional defense committees 
of cost, schedule, and performance trends for the B-21 bomber 
program. Finally, the provision would direct the difference 
between the Department of Defense's annual program budget 
funding amount at the service cost position level, and the 
contract award annual funding profile amount, less other 
government costs to manage the B-21 bomber program or otherwise 
authorized or appropriated, to be transferred to the Defense 
Rapid Prototyping Fund, in conjunction with each subsequent 
fiscal year's budget submission.
    The committee is very concerned with the B-21 bomber 
program acquisition strategy of awarding the engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD) phase contract using a cost 
plus/incentive fee (CPIF) structure. While the committee 
applauds the fixed-price and not-to-exceed price constructs for 
the low rate initial production and full rate production phases 
of the program, the committee remains concerned that 
performance shortfalls, schedule delays, and resultant cost 
increases during the EMD phase would expose the government and 
American taxpayers to excessive program risk, and in turn 
precipitate a situation such as previously experienced with the 
B-2 and F-22 programs. These programs far exceeded performance, 
schedule, and cost estimates in their developmental phases, 
resulting in affordability issues that ultimately delivered far 
fewer aircraft than the number required to meet combatant 
commander and defense strategy requirements.
    The committee understands unforeseen problems can arise in 
complex, challenging, and cutting-edge technology weapons 
systems programs. However, Congress needs frequent program 
performance reporting, expert assessments, and cost controls to 
properly exercise its oversight responsibilities and make 
critical funding adjustments, or when necessary, off-ramp 
termination decisions, as the steward of precious American 
taxpayer dollars.

        Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 
responsibilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) under 
chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code for improving 
program and project management. This provision would require 
that not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act that 
the Secretary of Defense develop Department-wide standards, 
policies and guidelines for program and project management.

Authority to waive tenure requirement for program managers for program 
        definition and program execution periods (sec. 852)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 826(e) and 827(e) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
harmonize the waiver authorities granted in these sections to 
the Service Acquisition Executive or the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Deputy 
Chief Management Officer, and the Chief Information Officer, 
and in coordination with the military services, to establish a 
set of activities that use data analysis, measurement, and 
other evaluation-related methods to improve the acquisition 
outcomes of the Department of Defense (DOD) and enhance 
organizational learning.

Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 
        Development Fund may be used (sec. 854)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the use 
of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
Fund. The provision would clarify that the fund could be used 
for the development of acquisition tools and methodologies and 
the undertaking of research and development of activities that 
could lead to acquisition policies and practices that will 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of defense acquisition 
efforts.
    The committee believes there are several areas where the 
Department should be using the Fund more effectively to achieve 
better acquisition outcomes and take advantage of new 
innovation in the commercial and global marketplaces. The 
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall review 
the adequacy of current acquisition training in the area of 
better accessing commercial vendors and the use of tools such 
as Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 contracts, Other 
Transactions Authority, Experimental Authority, Rapid 
Acquisition Authority, and other flexibilities in law and 
regulation and consider using the Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund to improve training of the Department of 
Defense Acquisition Workforce in the use of these authorities. 
The committee is particularly concerned with a lack of 
understanding of the flexibility of these authorities by 
contracting officers, the Office of the Inspector General, and 
the Defense Contract Management Agency.

           Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statutes 
to contracts for commercial items and commercial-available off-
the-shelf items. These would be in addition to those 
inapplicable government-wide statutes currently listed in the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) pursuant to section 
1906(b) of title 41, United States Code.
    The committee is concerned by the growing number of 
government-unique contract clauses that are now required for 
FAR Part 12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these 
clauses have grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in 
some cases over 80, government-unique contract clauses today. 
With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory 
burden ultimately paid by the taxpayer while each added new 
clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies 
willing to act as defense suppliers. This limits the potential 
competition, innovation, and creativity that is necessary to 
reduce costs to the taxpayer and deliver cutting-edge equipment 
to the men and women of the armed forces. The committee intends 
that this provision be used by the Department of Defense to 
reduce unnecessary requirements on contractors providing 
commercial items that are identified in the report required by 
section 854 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations (sec. 862)

    The committee recommends a provision that would exempt 
purchases of commercial off the shelf items by the Department 
of Defense from certain Executive Orders and give the Secretary 
of Defense waiver authority for other purchases. The committee 
is concerned about the increasing application of government 
unique mandates on defense contracting that do not apply to 
commercial vendors when they do business in the private sector. 
These government unique non-statutory requirements may serve as 
contractual barriers and cost drivers to commercial, small 
business, and innovative non-traditional contractors. 
Ultimately, these barriers may serve as disincentives for these 
firms from doing business with the Department of Defense (DOD).

Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu of military 
        specifications and standards (sec. 863)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense 
uses performance and commercial specifications and standards in 
lieu of military specifications and standards, including for 
procuring new systems, major modifications, upgrades to current 
systems, non-developmental and commercial items, and programs 
in all acquisition categories, unless no practical alternative 
exists to meet user needs. The committee is concerned that the 
Department over the last decade has moved away from the 
application of the so-called ``Perry Memo'' dated June 29, 1994 
on ``Specifications and Standards--A New Way of Doing 
Business'' and has returned to adopting defense-unique 
standards and specifications. This provision would codify 
portions of former Secretary of Defense William Perry's 
approach to adopting performance and commercial standards and 
specifications to the maximum extent practicable in defense 
operations.

Preference for commercial services (sec. 864)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance pursuant to section 855 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92). This provision would ensure that no head 
of an agency would enter into a contract in excess of the 
simplified acquisition threshold for facilities-related 
services, knowledge-based services, equipment-related services, 
construction services, medical services, logistics management 
services, or transportation services that are not commercial 
services unless the head of the agency determines in writing 
that no commercial services are suitable to meet the agency's 
needs as provided in section 2377(c)(2) of title 10, United 
States Code. The committee continues to be concerned by the 
perfunctory market research being performed by Departmental 
officials that oftentimes results in purchasing inappropriate 
defense unique solutions that are often more expensive for the 
taxpayer. Guidance issued pursuant to this provision should 
ensure that commercial services are first determined to be 
unsuitable to the government's needs before purchasing a non-
commercial service and that conducted market research be used 
to inform price reasonableness determinations.

Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors prior to 
        release of prime contract requests for proposals as commercial 
        items (sec. 865)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section to chapter 140 of title 10, United States Code, to 
treat the purchase of items valued less than $10,000 prior to 
the release of a government request for proposal (RFP) as a 
commercial item. There are many cases where contractors often 
place orders with subcontractors for material, supplies and 
parts that may be applicable to several commercial or 
government programs in advance of any government contract or 
RFP. Placing these ``advance release'' orders is often 
necessary to align subcontractor lead time (which, for some 
critical parts, can exceed 2 years) with government's funding 
and contracting cycles. This practice is in the government's 
interest because if prime contractors did not place such orders 
in advance--particularly in times of urgent need--required 
items would be delayed to the warfighter. Applying government-
unique accounting requirements after the fact to what are in 
essence commercial decisions and transactions is of limited 
value, and any reasonableness of price determinations on these 
items can be made using similar data and processes used to 
determine price reasonableness on a commercial item. The 
provision would still enable the Department of Defense to 
obtain information required for responsible program management.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2380A of title 10, United States Code, to treat 
business units of nontraditional contractors that offer 
services as a commercial item, if the business unit uses the 
same personnel and similar pricing as offered to commercial 
customers. The Committee is concerned that Department personnel 
are not always open to the idea that services related to a 
traditional Federal Acquisition (FAR) Part 15 program could be 
considered commercial. The committee notes that increasingly 
contracting officers take the position that a service contract 
can be commercial only if it relates to a commercial item. This 
will present a serious challenge to obtaining services in 
today's digital economy. Many technology companies are not 
prepared to offer their services on a FAR Part 15 basis, but 
for DOD to compete in the information age against its potential 
adversaries it will need access to those services, in the form 
of digital offerings, consulting, and analytics, on its 
traditional acquisition programs. The committee believes this 
and other provisions proposed in this bill will remedy this 
situation and encourage commercial services providers to offer 
their solutions more readily to the defense market.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, to require that 
the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
shall include that firm fixed-priced contracts, fixed-price 
incentive contracts or fixed-price with economic price 
adjustment contracts be used to the maximum extent practicable 
for the acquisition of commercial items. Additionally, this 
provision would prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for 
commercial items. The committee is concerned that the 
regulatory environment for the use of fixed-price contracts is 
more restrictive than the current law outlined in section 
8002(d) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-355). This provision will ensure that the 
Department of Defense practice will correspond to the 
flexibility inherent in the law and allow contracting officers 
when acquiring commercial items to use the full range of 
contracting tools available to the Department in Federal 
Acquisition Regulations Part 16 that are not cost contracts to 
include fixed-price incentive type contracts.

Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative commercial items, 
        technologies, and services using general solicitation 
        competitive procedures (sec. 868)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to carry out a pilot program 
to acquire innovative commercial items on a fixed-price basis 
using general solicitation competitive procedures and a peer 
review of such proposals. The committee believes that this 
authority will support the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
efforts to access technical innovations from non-traditional 
contractor sources.

                  Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters


Greater integration of the national technical industrial base (sec. 
        871)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to reduce the barriers 
to the seamless integration between the persons and 
organizations that comprise the National Technical Industrial 
Base and expand the definition in section 2500 (1) of title 10, 
United States Code to include the United Kingdom and Australia. 
The committee is concerned about the barriers that current 
technology transfer rules, laws, and regulations pose to the 
incorporation of commercial technology into defense items and 
to the ability of defense contractors in the United States to 
work with other internal and external corporate entities in 
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The committee is 
also concerned that universities, non-profit research entities, 
non-traditional and commercial contractors that now conduct the 
majority of global research and development are increasingly 
running up against the U.S. technology transfer regime and are 
choosing to conduct more research overseas so as to not trigger 
export control rules. If these trends continue innovation may 
be increasingly conducted overseas with technology more readily 
available to potential adversaries than to the U.S. military 
because of the lack of civil-military integration of the 
national technical industrial base.

Integration of civil and military roles in attaining national 
        technology and industrial base objectives (sec. 872)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2501(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that 
the Secretary of Defense when meeting the national security 
strategy for the national technology and industrial base shall 
engage in acquisition reform efforts that: (1) rely, to the 
maximum extent practicable, upon the commercial national 
technology and industrial base that is required to meet the 
national security needs of the United States; (2) reduce the 
reliance of the Department of Defense on technology and 
industrial base sectors that are economically dependent on 
Department of Defense business; and (3) reduce Federal 
Government barriers to the use of commercial products, 
processes, and standards.

Distribution support and services for weapon systems contractors (sec. 
        873)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to make available storage 
and distribution services support to weapons system support 
contractors in support of the performance of a contract related 
to the production, modification, maintenance, or repair of a 
Department weapons system. The committee believes that this 
provision would decrease Department of Defense costs associated 
with the logistical problems of redundant storage and 
distribution capabilities by allowing the integration of 
material used to support weapons systems into existing 
governmental facilities.

Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR programs (sec. 874)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 9(m) and 9(n)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
638(m)) in order to make the Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) program at the Department of Defense permanent.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2413(c) of title 10, United States Code to conform the 
Procurement Technical Assistance Program with the Defense 
Logistics Agency current practice of using states as the 
geographic basis for cooperative agreement awards.

Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation prototyping program 
        (sec. 876)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
pilot program for nontraditional contractors and small 
businesses to prototype disruptive solutions that demonstrate 
new capabilities that could provide alternatives to existing 
acquisition program and assets. This pilot program would be 
funded out of the Rapid Prototyping Fund established under 
section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).

             Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters


International sales process improvements (sec. 881)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
improvements to the management and use of fees collected on the 
transfer of defense articles under programs in which the 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has administrative 
responsibilities. The provision would require The Secretary of 
Defense to develop a plan for improvements and to gather 
contractor input on the appropriateness of governmental pricing 
and availability estimates. Additionally, this provision would 
require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit 
a review to the congressional defense committees no later than 
180 days after the enactment of this Act on the management and 
use of fees collected by DSCA.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review the management and use of fees collected on 
transfers of defense articles and services via sale, lease, or 
grant to international customers under programs over which the 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency has administration 
responsibilities and submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the review, including--
          (1) the dollar value of fees collected over the last 
        5 years associated with the process of transferring 
        defense articles and services via sale, lease, or 
        grant;
          (2) a description of how funds collected as a result 
        of the fees in paragraph (1) have been used and how the 
        Department of Defense plans to use these funds in the 
        future;
          (3) a determination of whether excess funds are being 
        generated;
          (4) a determination of whether fees are being used to 
        maintain inefficient staffing levels or are being spent 
        for purposes other than those associated with improving 
        efficient and effective administration of the process;
          (5) an assessment of the adequacy, both qualitatively 
        and quantitatively, of Department of Defense staffing 
        required to manage the process;
          (6) a determination of whether the Department's 
        process to administer the transfer of defense articles 
        and services via sale, lease, or grant to international 
        customers is adequate to meet wartime or contingency 
        needs of United States allies;
          (7) an assessment of the adequacy of information 
        technology processes needed to improve process 
        efficiency or effectiveness;
          (8) a determination of whether the fee structure and 
        additional costs associated with utilizing such a 
        process is causing United States contractors to lose 
        sales to foreign competitors; and
          (9) any other matters the Comptroller General 
        determines to be appropriate.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a working capital fund to 
finance inventories of supplies of precision guided munitions 
in advance of partner and allied forces requirements to enhance 
the effectiveness of overseas contingency operations conducted 
or supported by the United States. The inventories of munitions 
would be managed by the Defense Logistics Agency and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to optimize the storage, distribution, and 
deployment of such precision guided munitions to improve the 
capability of partner and allied forces to contribute to 
overseas contingency operations conducted or supported by the 
United States.

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in 
        countries along major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 883)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 801(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend by 2 years the 
authority to acquire products and services produced in 
countries along the major route of supply to Afghanistan. 
Extending this authority is necessary given the ongoing U.S. 
mission in the region and the importance of maintaining 
relationships established in the Northern Distribution Network.

Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside the United 
        States (sec. 884)

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify for 
Department of Defense contracts the longstanding exemption 
contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.000(b) that 
small business set-asides are not applied to overseas 
contracts. The committee is concerned about a recent 
conflicting regulation issued by the Small Business 
Administration that would undermine the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation. This regulation if implemented could potentially 
jeopardize counterinsurgency goals and undermine international 
agreements that the Department of Defense abides by and lead to 
increases in the level of bid protests and contract delays.

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Africa 
        in support of covered activities (sec. 885)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense authority to make a determination to limit 
competition or provide a preference for products and services 
produced in areas where the United States has long-term 
agreements with host nations in the African region. This 
provision would enhance necessary long-term agreements and 
stability in the African region by providing economic and 
employment opportunities for host nations and their citizens.

Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department of Defense of 
        People's Republic of China-origin items that meet the 
        definition of goods and services controlled as munitions items 
        when moved to the ``600 series'' of the Commerce Control List 
        (sec. 886)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to maintain the 
prohibition on procuring military items from China. Section 
1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2006 prohibits the Secretary of Defense from 
procuring goods or services, through a contract or any 
subcontract (at any tier), from any People's Republic of China 
military company if those goods or services are on the U.S. 
munitions list (USML) of the International Traffic in Arms 
Regulations. The executive branch has recently revised the USML 
by reclassifying and moving items that are not critical to 
maintaining a military or intelligence advantage or otherwise 
warrant such controls to the jurisdiction of the ``600 series'' 
of the Commerce Control List, with the aim of increasing allied 
access to such items.
    The committee agrees with the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
position that even though the items moved to the ``600 series'' 
are less-sensitive items, they are still military items and 
should remain prohibited for export to destinations subject to 
U.S. arms embargoes and, in the case of comparable People's 
Republic of China-origin items, should remain prohibited from 
procurement by the Department of Defense. As such this 
provision would include under the current prohibition military 
items moved from the USML to the ``600 series'' of the Commerce 
Control List. This would ensure the prohibition remains in 
place for the same universe of items as currently required 
under section 1211 and can be implemented in a change to 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 
Clause 225.770. This provision would not expand or narrow the 
scope of items subject to the current prohibition. The 
committee believes that without an amendment, DOD could not 
maintain the prohibition. As a result, legislation is necessary 
to maintain the current prohibition effectively and more 
efficiently and to ensure that Chinese-origin military items 
are not procured by DOD in order to protect the security of the 
supply chain for U.S. weapons systems and other defense 
programs.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 
and initiate a program to improve contractor business systems. 
The provision would clarify that this program would only apply 
to those contractors that do more than 30 percent of their 
business with the federal government and more than 1 percent of 
their business under cost type contracts. This should 
incentivize contractors that conduct more than 70 percent of 
their sales in the commercial market to utilize the same 
business systems they use in commercial marketplace.
    The committee is concerned that the current Department of 
Defense (DOD) business systems regulation focuses on ensuring 
contractors have compliant procedures in contrast to the 
practice in the commercial market where commercial business 
systems focus on achieving optimal outcomes. While prescribed 
business systems may add some value to contractors that perform 
mostly military work, they force predominantly commercial 
companies to either adopt the DOD approach for only a small 
portion of revenue, or split their functional-support 
operations into separate government and commercial groups. In 
either case, DOD effectively foregoes the benefits that accrue 
when the contractor leverages its commercial buying power to 
offer DOD best value and quality. The committee believes the 
Department should maximize the advantages of commercial 
business practices wherever it can and not pay for commercial 
companies to waste unnecessary resources in complying with 
unique defense business systems requirements.
    The committee is also concerned about cost to the 
Department in overseeing contractor earned value management 
systems (EVMS). On September 29, 2015, the Department of 
Defense released a study entitled ``Eliminating Requirements 
Imposed on Industry Where Costs Exceed Benefits''' that 
assessed a number of recommendations by industry for reducing 
the overhead and other costs associates with contracting with 
the Department of Defense. Among other areas, the report 
examined a number of suggestions for streamlining the costs 
associated with administering the earned value management 
systems (EVMS) required on all cost or incentive contracts 
valued over $20.0 million. Currently, for cost and incentive 
contracts valued above a certain threshold, the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) stipulates that the 
contractor must have an EVMS determined by the cognizant 
federal agency to be in compliance with ANSI/EIA-748 
guidelines. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 
implements this requirement for DOD by conducting compliance 
reviews of contractors' EVMS and annual system surveillance of 
approved systems.
    At the time the report was prepared, the threshold contract 
value for mandatory EVMS compliance reviews and systems 
surveillance was $50.0 million. At this threshold, DCMA 
personnel were required at 142 sites to oversee EVM systems 
associated with 304 separate contracts with a total value of 
nearly $260.0 billion. The chart on page 59 of the report 
indicates that leaving the current EVMS requirements in place 
for contracts above $20.0 million, but increasing above $50.0 
million the contract value threshold for routine EVM systems 
compliance surveillance could result in significant overhead 
savings by reducing the number of sites and contracts requiring 
DCMA personnel and continuing oversight while having a 
relatively small impact on the total contract dollars covered. 
For example, raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 
million to $200.0 million would reduce the number of sites 
requiring DCMA personnel for this function from 142 to 85 and 
the number of contracts from 304 to 163. The total contract 
dollar coverage on the other hand would drop from $260.0 
billion to $245.0 billion, representing only a 5.7 percent 
reduction.
    On September 28, 2015, the DOD issued a DFARS deviation 
raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 to $100.0 
million for routine EVM systems surveillance. The committee 
believes the data show that a further increase of the threshold 
to $200.0 million is warranted and urges the department to take 
this additional step as soon as is practicable. The committee 
notes in doing so that the department would retain its full 
rights to review contractor EVMS whenever it believes that a 
contractor's data quality appears suspect.

Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to certain non-
        defense agencies (sec. 892)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 893 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to provide an exception 
for the Defense Contract Audit Agency to provide audit support 
to the Nuclear Security Administration on a reimbursable basis.

Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve performance of 
        certain Department Of Defense by Defense organizations (sec. 
        893)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require all 
Department of Defense entities, with the exception of the 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated 
pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United States Code, which 
conduct commercial on non-inherently governmental work to 
establish cost baselines for their operations and begin to 
adopt best commercial and business management practices to 
reduce costs and improve the performance of such organizations. 
The committee expects that these organizations will be leading 
adopters of the cost accounting standards mandated in another 
section of this Act.

Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 139 of title 10, United States Code, and section 196(g) 
of title 10, United States Code, that would refine the role of 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. This provision 
would amend the sections so that the function of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and 
Evaluation and the Director of Department of Defense Test 
Resource Management Center would be transferred to the Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation.
    This provision would also clarify the role of the Secretary 
of Defense for Test and evaluation issues with regard to the 
service chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments.

Exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment control 
        for information technology equipment included as integral part 
        of a weapon or weapon system (sec. 895)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the milestone decision authority shall only apply the 
requirements of paragraphs (2) through (5) of section 11312(b) 
of title 40, United States Code, to national security systems 
upon a written determination that the application of these 
requirements is appropriate and in the best interests of the 
Department of Defense.

Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative 
        technology projects (sec. 896)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to clarify that the use of 
a technical, merit-based selection procedure or the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program or Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program for the pilot program under this 
section are competitive procedures for the purposes of chapter 
137 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also 
direct the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures under 
which a small business or a nontraditional contractor may 
engage an independent certified public accountant for the 
review and certification of its accounting system for the 
purposes of any audits required by this section.

Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806(c)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to 
add a new subparagraph addressing the rapid acquisition of 
electronic warfare capabilities. This provision would enhance 
the abilities of the Secretary of Defense to respond to the 
increasingly urgent threat in the area of electromagnetic 
spectrum warfare and more quickly field critical electronic 
warfare technologies.

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of Defense 
        research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and 
        procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 898)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract, grant, 
or cooperative agreement for congressional special interest 
medical research programs under the congressionally directed 
medical research program of the Department of Defense unless 
there is sufficient transparency on cost accounting and other 
specified requirements.

Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology developed at 
        Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 899)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to extend the 
authorization granted to the Secretary of Defense and service 
secretaries in the Act until 2020. The committee notes the 
importance of the ability for the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to license DOD-owned intellectual property that may not have 
been patented yet and to maintain associated royalties for the 
advancement of DOD laboratories and innovation.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to authorize the Secretary 
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force each to establish service-
specific funds for acquisition programs under the rapid 
fielding and prototyping pathways established in this section.

Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2216 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
authorizations for the Defense Modernization Account. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has in the past analyzed 
the limited use of the account in several reports and the 
committee included changes in the scope and application of the 
account to address GAO's findings.

                       Items of Special Interest


Defense industrial supply chain security

    The industrial base that supports the Department of Defense 
is a vital factor in our national security capability. For 
decades, the Department has partnered with industry to command 
a decisive advantage when it comes to innovation and 
manufacturing of military systems. Today's defense industrial 
base is more commercialized and more globalized than ever 
before. While these trends have yielded valuable advantages in 
cost and performance of military systems, they also pose new 
challenges in managing supply chain risk and maintaining the 
technological superiority of the U.S. military. The success of 
efforts to better align national resources with current and 
future needs will depend on a robust, technologically-advanced 
U.S. industrial base supporting our warfighters.
    The committee notes that the Department is already required 
to assess industrial base risk in making contract award 
decisions, including factors related to maintaining domestic 
capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 
Secretary Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to 
assess as part of the annual report requested by section 2504 
of title 10, United States Code, on the extent to which 
manufacturing capabilities of major defense contractors that do 
more than $250 million in business annually with the Department 
has been offshored. The review should identify those 
contractors that have offshored manufacturing capabilities that 
specifically support major defense acquisition programs, 
including offshoring by their U.S. based parent and subsidiary 
companies and U.S. based joint ventures that support the 
defense industrial base.

Expansion of eligible small business concerns The committee

    The committee is concerned that there is a disincentive for 
small businesses to grow their non-defense commercial business 
as they receive government contracts. The committee believes 
that one of the objectives of the small business contracting 
program should be to create entities that can eventually move 
beyond government contracting and compete in the broader 
commercial market. At the present time, a small business is 
penalized if it grows its commercial business by losing small 
business contracting benefits, and this fact serves as a 
disincentive to expanding into the commercial market. The 
committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review the 
advisability of being given the authority to continue to treat 
those small businesses that diversify into the commercial 
market as small business for a limited transition period and 
propose any legislative proposals necessary to encourage small 
business to be successful in both the defense and commercial 
markets.

Modification of commercial items definition

    The committee is concerned about the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) increasingly narrow interpretation of the 
definition of commercial items. The committee considered 
several outside proposals to expand the underlying statutory 
commercial item definition with regards to commercial products 
but at this time decided that it was premature to act as the 
current definition is appropriately broad enough to enable 
commercial companies to modify commercial products to meet DOD 
needs. If, however, the Department continues to inappropriately 
limit the scope of the commercial items definition and the 
committee continues to hear from non-traditional contractors 
from Silicon Valley and other innovative regions in the United 
States that the application of the commercial item definition 
continues to serve as a barrier to their participation in the 
DOD market the committee will reconsider whether to expand the 
statutory commercial item definition as it applies to DOD 
contracting.
    The current ``of a type'' and ``minor modifications'' 
language were intended by Congress to be broadly interpreted to 
expand access to items that were beyond commercial off the 
shelf items. If there is a problem with the definition it 
appears to be the Department's repeated attempts to narrow the 
definition to conform to an oversight strategy that will 
inadvertently lead to less competition, increased costs and a 
greater concentration of defense unique contractors. The 
committee believes the Department should focus more on 
developing the skills and capabilities to price items 
commercially rather than creating a new bureaucracy to 
adjudicate commercial item determinations. Ultimately, to 
protect the taxpayer the Department will need to focus on value 
rather than process when it determines whether it paid a fair 
and reasonable price for an item.

Preserving competition in the defense industry

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has expressed concern over the negative impacts that defense 
industry consolidation may have on the ability to develop, 
procure, and sustain military capabilities in a cost effective 
manner. Reduced competition can lead to cost growth, 
monopolistic behavior, and reduced incentives for efficiency 
and innovation. The committee further notes that the 
Department's authorities to address potential industry 
consolidation are unclear and potentially inadequate because of 
statutory and regulatory constraints.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to engage an independent entity to analyze the adequacy of 
existing antitrust and foreign investment review authorities 
and the impact of DOD acquisition program strategies on defense 
industry consolidation. The independent entity should also 
examine the national security implications of mergers among 
major defense suppliers, as well as other mergers or changes in 
control activity within industry that may impact the national 
defense. The independent entity should make recommendations on 
possible actions by the executive branch and Congress to 
address issues in these areas.
    The committee directs the Secretary to review such 
recommendations and take appropriate actions to ensure that the 
national defense interest is not jeopardized through security 
risks or an alteration of the defense industrial base that 
would limit competition or create prohibitive costs for the 
Department of Defense.

Small business contract bundling

    The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense, 
where appropriate and to the maximum extent practicable, issue 
solicitations and task and delivery orders as set-asides for 
exclusive participation by small business concerns evenly 
across North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes. The committee also believes that the Secretary should 
limit excessive concentrations of small business within NAICS 
codes and limit the award of large contracts to small 
businesses that would force them to lose their small business 
status. While the committee is pleased to see the Department of 
Defense (DOD) meet its overall small business prime contracting 
goal, it is concerned about some of the means to achieve that 
goal. Excessive concentration of small business contracting in 
some business sectors is crowding out the middle tier of 
contractors and leaving very little room for small business to 
contract with the Department after they have graduated from 
being a small business. The committee is also concerned about 
the award of large contracts with small business that allow DOD 
to meet their contracting goals but are leading to a ``one and 
done'' outcome for small business who are no longer small 
businesses once they receive these large contracts. The 
committee expects the Secretary to establish small business 
policies that are designed to create a more diverse and robust 
industrial base and create opportunities and a pathway for 
small businesses to grow and compete for future DOD contracts 
as larger entities.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

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

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and related 
        acquisition position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
        (sec. 901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 133 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering. The Under Secretary for Research and Engineering 
would assist the Secretary by serving as the chief acquisition 
officer and the chief technology officer of the Department of 
Defense and the principal adviser on scientific, technological 
and acquisition matters to the Secretary and to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense.
    The provision would also amend section 138 of title 10, 
United States Code, to consolidate certain Assistant Secretary 
of Defense positions and to establish a new position of 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Policy and 
Oversight. The provision would eliminate the statutory 
requirements that establish the positions of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment, but would not disestablish the underlying 
positions. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to 
designate the positions and duties of such other Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense as best support the requirements of the 
Department. The provision would also repeal section 139b and 
139c, to eliminate the statutory requirements that establish 
the positions of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Developmental Test and Evaluation, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, and the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial 
Base Policy.
    The provision would also make conforming amendments and 
would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 
the Committees of Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, with recommendations for conforming and such other 
amendments as the Secretary considers appropriate to effect the 
amendments made by this provision.
    In the 1960s and the 1970s the Director of Defense for 
Research and Engineering which later became the Undersecretary 
of Defense for Research and Engineering in 1977 led 
technological innovation in the Department of Defense. The 
position was held by leaders such as Harold Brown and William 
Perry, each of whom later became Secretary of Defense. The 
USD(R&E;) was the catalyst behind the Department's Second Offset 
program, which led to the development of stealth, precision 
guided munitions, and other revolutionary capabilities that 
advanced our nation's military technological dominance to this 
day.
    During a series of hearings on defense reform, the 
committee heard from a wide range of experts that the U.S. 
military was falling behind technologically and that the 
current acquisition structure and process were significant 
factors in the inability to access new sources of innovation. 
The committee believes that reestablishing the position of the 
USD(R&E;) is particularly important in a time when U.S. 
technological dominance is eroding and innovation is 
increasingly being driven by commercial and global companies 
that are not a part of the traditional U.S. defense industrial 
base. The committee expects that just as previous USD(R&E;) 
incumbents led the so-called ``Second Offset'' strategy, which 
successfully enabled the United States to leap ahead of the 
Soviet Union in terms of military technology, the new USD(R&E;) 
would be tasked with driving the key technologies that must 
encompass what defense leaders are now calling a ``Third 
Offset'' strategy: cyber and space capabilities, unmanned 
systems, directed energy, undersea warfare, hypersonics, and 
robotics, among others.
    The existing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, 
Chemical, and Biological Defense would be part of this new 
USD(R&E;) because of the centrality of the nuclear modernization 
mission. In addition, the committee expects the USD(R&E;) to 
leverage offices such as the Strategic Capabilities Office and 
the Rapid Capabilities Offices in the services, which have been 
created recently to move faster around the current acquisition 
system and to transition developed technologies more quickly 
from the laboratory to deployment. In addition, the committee 
anticipates that the USD(R&E;) will be a unifying force to focus 
the efforts of the defense laboratories, as well as agencies 
with critical innovation missions, such as the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 
and the Missile Defense Agency on achieving and maintaining 
U.S. defense technological dominance.
    To enable the USD(R&E;) to primarily focus on the innovation 
mission, this provision creates a new Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition Policy and Oversight under the USD(R&E;) 
and transfers several agencies focused on the execution of 
acquisition functions to the Under Secretary for Management and 
Support. Continuing to maintain these functions under the 
USD(R&E;) would likely divert needed senior management attention 
away from the impending threats that the nation faces and the 
necessity to advance innovation throughout the Department and 
with partners in the defense and commercial sector. In addition 
a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics and Sustainment was 
created to support the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition Policy and Oversight on these matters.
    The changes included in the provision are informed by the 
committee's observation that the official serving as the chief 
acquisition and technology officer should be focused on 
envisioning and developing the advanced technologies that the 
nation will need over the next decade or two to stay far ahead 
of our strategic adversaries. The committee believes that 
improving defense innovation requires a greater willingness to 
experiment and accept risk. Experimentation and even occasional 
failure cannot be stigmatized, so long as failure occurs 
quickly, cheaply, and leads to knowledge that can drive toward 
eventual success. That is a different kind of culture than the 
pervasive caution and slowness that currently exists across the 
Department of Defense acquisition and research enterprises.
    One former Deputy Secretary of Defense recently observed 
that the nation lost something important thirty years ago when 
USD(R&E;) was folded together with all other acquisition 
functions under USD(AT&L;). The numerous acquisition reform 
authorities contained in last year's National Defense 
Authorization Act, and the many more proposed in this year's 
Act, are largely focused on empowering the Secretary of Defense 
to work around DOD's slow and costly acquisition system, to 
access new centers of innovation and disruptive new 
technologies in our commercial economy, and to reclaim our 
eroding defense technological advantage. This was the mission 
that the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering once 
performed so effectively, and the committee believes should be 
empowered to do again.
Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the military 
        departments (sec. 902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3013, 5013, 8013 of title 10, United States Code, to 
prescribe management experience of large and complex 
organizations as qualification required for individuals to 
serve as the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, 
respectively.
Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information (Chief 
        Information Officer) in Office of Secretary of Defense (sec. 
        903)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
paragraph 8 of section 132(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
to establish the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Information. As the Chief Information Officer of the 
Department, the Assistant Secretary will report to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and be responsible 
for cyber and space policy, information network defense, 
policies and standards governing information technology systems 
and related information security activities of the Department, 
and oversight of the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense and other Department of Defense headquarters offices 
        (sec. 904)
    The committee recommends a provision that would:
          (1) amend section 143 of title 10, United States 
        Code, to limit the number of civilian and detailed 
        individuals authorized to be assigned to the Office of 
        the Secretary of Defense to 3,767;
          (2) amend section 155 of title 10, to limit the 
        number of personnel on the Joint Staff to 1,930 
        including not more than 1,500 Active-Duty 
        servicemembers;
          (3) amend section 3014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Army 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Army and on the Army staff to 
        3,105; and to reduce the total number of general 
        officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the 
        Office of the Secretary of the Army and on the Army 
        staff from 67 to 50.
          (4) amend section 5014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Navy 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Navy and on the Navy staff to 
        2,866; and to reduce the total number of flag officers 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Navy and on the Navy staff from 67 
        to 50.
          (5) amend section 8014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Air Force and on the Air Force 
        staff to 2,639; and to reduce the total number of 
        general officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty 
        in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and on 
        the Air Force staff from 60 to 45.
    The provision would further clarify the exceptions to the 
personnel limits. It would allow the limits to be increased by 
15 percent during a national emergency.
Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation contracts at 
        management headquarters of the Department of Defense and the 
        military departments (sec. 905)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
amount of funds available for staff augmentation contracts at 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters of 
the military departments for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to not 
more than the amount expended for those contracts in fiscal 
year 2016. The provision would further require a 25 percent 
reduction to the fiscal year 2016 funding for those contracts 
after fiscal year 2018.
Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense supporting 
        achievement of results in Department of Defense management 
        reform and business transformation efforts (sec. 906)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish a delivery 
unit that would report directly to the Secretary to provide 
expertise and support needed to deliver results on key reform 
and business transformation priorities across the Department 
for no more than four years beginning February 1, 2017. Such 
delivery unit may utilize the public-private talent exchange 
authorities available to the Secretary and consist of no more 
than 30 professionals with deep experience in management 
consulting, organization transformation, and data analytics. 
The delivery unit's mission is as follows: (1) help line 
managers develop and implement roadmaps to achieve reform 
targets set by the next Secretary of Defense and (2) enable the 
Secretary and Deputy to monitor progress and make course 
corrections in near real time for faster, data-driven decision 
making. Such delivery unit shall leverage on the Department's 
current exchange programs with the private sector to utilize 
proven data analytics and management consulting practices. An 
authorization of $30.0 million will be made available for the 
delivery unit and will not be available for expenditure until 
February 1, 2017.

                 Subtitle B--Combatant Command Matters

Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command matters (sec. 921)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 151 and 153 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
key duties that this officer must perform on behalf of the 
joint force: providing advice on the military elements of 
defense strategy and the global integration of military 
activities, and advocating for the joint warfighter of today 
and tomorrow, especially with respect to developing joint 
capabilities, ensuring comprehensive joint readiness, and 
fostering joint force development. While the personalities of 
different Chairmen will always have a bearing on how they 
execute the duties of the position, this provision seeks to 
clarify that role and thereby set an expectation that the 
preponderance of any Chairman's time should be devoted to the 
key strategic, global, and joint duties that are the unique 
purview of the Chairman.
    The provision would also enhance the role of the other 
members of the Joint Chiefs, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a 
corporate body, to provide military advice to civilian leaders, 
including on the military elements of strategy. Current law 
leaves it at the Chairman's discretion how much to consult with 
the other Joint Chiefs and whether to inform civilian leaders 
of any difference of opinions or alternative military advice 
among them. This provision would seek to strike a better 
balance between enabling the Chairman to act energetically and 
quickly as the principal military adviser to civilian leaders.
    The provision would also strike the requirement that the 
Joint Chief provide advice to civilian leaders ``upon 
request.'' A statutory requirement that the Chiefs should 
follow orders strikes the committee as unnecessary. At the same 
time, the committee is concerned that this section of the law 
could be interpreted to suggest that the Joint Chiefs can only 
provide advice upon request. For that reason, the committee 
recommends removing the requirement.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 
section 152 of title 10, to modify the term of service of the 
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At 
present, both officers serve two year terms with eligibility 
for a two year renewal, provided the consent of the Senate in 
both cases. The committee agrees with Secretary of Defense 
Robert Gates, who testified to the committee on October 21, 
2015, that the existing term of service created unintended and 
unnecessary adverse consequences, and that it should be 
replaced with single four-year terms, with the authority for a 
single two-year extension.
    At the same time, the committee recommends a provision that 
would amend section 154 of title 10, to require the Department 
of Defense to return to the staggered terms of service for the 
Chairman and Vice Chairman, which would prevent both officers 
from turning over at the same time, which has been the case 
since 2007 but was not as the law originally intended. The 
committee also recommends a provision that prohibit the Vice 
Chairman from being eligible to serve as the Chairman or any 
other position in the armed services. The committee believes 
that this adjustment to the law would ensure a high quality of 
military advice to civilian leaders, and ultimately strengthen 
civilian control over the military.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 
section 164 of title 10, to more clearly define the role of the 
combatant commanders (COCOMs). The law that defines the COCOM's 
duties simply states that they shall perform the missions 
assigned by the Secretary and the President. It provides no 
guidance about the substance of those duties. This provision 
would establish that the primary duties of the COCOMs are to 
execute the national defense strategies in consultation with 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prepare and plan 
for conflict, to take necessary actions to deter conflict, and 
if directed by the Secretary, to command U.S. armed forces in 
combat. This provision would not prohibit the COCOMs from 
performing other missions, many of which are vitally important, 
but would rather seek to focus the COCOMs more clearly on their 
core missions of warfighting excellence, which is what the 
commands were established to do.
    Finally, the committee recommends a provision that would 
amend chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
new section 163a that would create a Combatant Commanders 
Council, consisting of all the COCOMs, the Chairman and Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of 
Defense, who would convene the Council and set the agenda, but 
could delegate that authority to the Chairman. In the event 
that the Secretary did not attend a meeting of the Council, he 
could send a representative. The purpose of the Council would 
be to aid in the execution of defense strategy and the global 
integration of military activities across the regional and 
functional divisions of the COCOMs. This is increasingly 
important in light of the fact that the highest priority 
worldwide threats facing the United States increasingly span 
multiple COCOM areas and domains of responsibility and require 
their seamless integration.

Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of authority to direct 
        transfer of forces (sec. 922)

    The committee recommends a provision, requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would amend section 113 of title 
10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to 
delegate some authority to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff for the worldwide reallocation of limited military assets 
on a short-term basis, consistent with the Secretary's policy 
guidance and the national defense strategy. The Secretary would 
retain control over whether to delegate any authority--and if 
so, how much--and would be fully informed of any actions taken 
by the Chairman.
    At present, the Chairman is solely an advisor. He or she 
has no authority to command any forces or assets, which was one 
way that the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 guarded against over-centralizing 
military power in the Chairman's hands and protected civilian 
control of the military. As a result, any transfer from one 
COCOM area of responsibility to another of any military 
capability, be it an aircraft carrier or a military working 
dog, must be approved by the Secretary. In light of present and 
future transnational challenges, the committee is believes the 
law is overly restrictive, and leads to a less responsive and 
efficient global integration of defense strategy and military 
operations, which could become more pronounced and problematic 
during a crisis. The purpose of this provision would therefore 
be to strengthen the Chairman's ability to assist the Secretary 
with the global integration of military operations in order to 
address transregional, cross-functional, and multi-domain 
threats more effectively.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 138 and 167 of title 10, United States Code, to modify 
the roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD 
SOLIC) and the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM).
    The committee notes that since 2001, SOCOM has undergone 
significant growth. During that time, SOCOM personnel numbers 
(civilian and military) have nearly doubled, its budget nearly 
tripled, and overseas deployments of special operations forces 
(SOF) nearly quadrupled. At the same time, the office of the 
ASD SOLIC, which is responsible for ``the overall supervision 
(including oversight of policy and resources) of special 
operations activities,'' has increasingly focused attention on 
operational issues as well as assuming responsibilities for 
counter-narcotics programs, building partner capacity 
initiatives, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts of 
the DOD, which have stretched the resources available to the 
office.
    As a result, ASD SOLIC's ability to provide appropriate 
``service secretary-like'' oversight of and advocacy for the 
``man, train, and equip'' aspects of SOCOM have become more 
difficult. Additionally, other civilian offices with greater 
seniority within the Department exercise related and, at times, 
overlapping responsibilities for aspects of SOF oversight, 
further complicating the ASD SOLIC's ``service secretary-like'' 
oversight responsibilities of SOCOM.
    To address these issues, the recommended provision would 
empower the ASD SOLIC with ``the overall supervision (including 
oversight of policy, program planning and execution, and 
allocation and use of resources) of special operations 
activities.'' Further, the provision would mirror the 
relationship between the service secretaries and the military 
services by defining the administrative chain of command for 
SOCOM as running through the ASD SOLIC to the Secretary of 
Defense for ``service-like'' issues impacting the readiness and 
organization of SOF, special operations-peculiar resources and 
equipment, and civilian personnel management. It would not 
impact the operational chain of command for SOF activities or 
the ``service-common'' responsibilities of the military 
services including personnel and other matters that are not 
special operations-peculiar. Additionally, the provision would 
establish a team, led by the ASD SOLIC, for the purposes of 
better integrating efforts of the various functional offices 
with responsibilities for SOF issues.
    Lastly, recognizing the growth and maturity of SOCOM and 
the responsibility of its commander for the overall readiness 
of SOF, the recommended provision would enhance the ability of 
the commander to coordinate with the military services on 
issues impacting the readiness of SOF, most notably 
assignments, retention, training, professional military 
education, and special and incentive pays.

Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of a unified 
        combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 924)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to initiate a pilot program on organizing 
the subordinate commands of a unified combatant command in the 
form of joint task forces. The Secretary would be required to 
establish the pilot program in at least one unified combatant 
command. The Secretary would be required to develop, for each 
combatant command participating in the pilot program, a plan to 
disestablish subordinate commands, identify major threat-based 
missions and contingencies in the area of responsibility, and 
establish subordinate commands as joint task forces. The plans 
will be developed in consultation with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of the combatant 
command participating in the pilot program. The provision 
includes specific guidance on the objectives of each joint task 
force created, and how the creation of the joint task forces in 
general are intended to overcome problems in the organization, 
mission performance, planning and decision-making, and 
prioritization that can be improved through trans-regional, 
cross-functional, and multi-domain threats.
    The plans required to be developed under the provision 
shall be completed by March 1, 2017, and implemented not later 
than September 1, 2017. The Secretary shall submit the plans to 
the congressional defense committees. The Secretary shall 
provide a report on each plan so created not later than 
September 1, 2018.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 164 of title 10, United States Code, to require that at 
least one deputy commander of the combatant command of the 
geographic area of responsibility which includes the United 
States be a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
unless a reserve component officer is serving as commander of 
that combatant command.

Subtitle C--Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense 
                          Offices and Elements


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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement an organizational 
strategy for the Department of Defense (DOD). This strategy 
would enable the Department to focus its attention and 
resources on its most important missions and objectives through 
the introduction of mechanisms to integrate planning and 
decision-making across its functionally aligned organizations, 
accompanied by cultural changes in the Department to emphasize 
collaboration and teamwork.
    The provision would require the Secretary, in developing 
the strategy, to (1) identify the most important missions and 
other priority output of the Department; (2) reform the way 
that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) operates; (3) 
improve the management of relationships and processes involving 
OSD, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, the military 
departments, and the defense agencies; and (4) improve support 
to the President and the National Security Council.
    The objectives of the strategy are to enable DOD to 
integrate the expertise and capacities of its functional 
components to effective and efficient accomplishment of the 
Department's most important missions, and to enable the 
Department to operate at higher efficiencies with reduced 
layers of management and staffing.
    The strategy is required to address, and be designed to 
overcome, a series of existing impediments, including (1) 
sequential, hierarchical planning and decision-making processes 
oriented around functional bureaucratic structures that are 
excessively parochial, duplicative, and resistant to integrated 
operations and solutions; and (2) layered management structures 
and processes that today serve as the only means of cross-
functional integration and decision-making, which results in 
most decisions being elevated to senior levels, consuming 
excessive time and leadership attention, diluting the influence 
of staff expertise, and contributing to outcomes based on 
lowest-common-denominator consensus rather than clear, 
coherent, efficacious courses of action.
    The strategy must address the underlying causes of these 
problems, including (1) a non-collaborative culture in DOD that 
lacks shared purpose and values; (2) structure, processes and 
leadership behaviors that value consensus more than clarity and 
reward effort rather than effectiveness, which thus empower 
components to easily block but not advance coherent initiatives 
and are a powerful disincentive to collaboration; (3) risk 
aversion arising from fear of the consequences of real or 
perceived failure and the lack of incentives and rewards for 
appropriate risk-taking; (4) lack of viable alternative 
mechanisms for integrating across the almost exclusively 
functionally aligned components of the Department. Finally, the 
provision would require that the Secretary's strategy 
establish, or take specific actions, to achieve (1) effective 
cross-functional mission teams to manage the major issues and 
other high-priority outputs of the Department that inherently 
cross functional boundaries; (2) a collaborative, team-
oriented, results-driven and innovative culture within the 
Department; (3) a simplified organizational structure with 
reduced layers of management and fewer duplicative staff 
elements; and (4) streamlined processes designed to improve 
performance and outcomes in less time.
    In support of the strategy, the provision would require the 
Secretary to establish cross-functional mission teams to 
produce comprehensive and fully integrated policies, 
strategies, plans, resourcing, and oversight; and to empower 
these teams to supervise the implementation of mission 
strategies.
    The Secretary would be required to issue a directive on the 
role, authorities, resourcing, manning, and operations of the 
mission teams, which must specify that the teams are decision-
making rather than advisory bodies, and provide clear direction 
that the leaders of DOD's functional components providing 
personnel to the teams (1) not interfere in the activities of 
the team; (2) shall instruct personnel assigned to the teams to 
faithfully represent the views and expertise of their 
functional components while contributing to the best of their 
ability to the success of the mission team concerned; and (3) 
shall be assessed for performance review purposes according to 
their support to, and cooperation with, the mission teams 
interacting with their functional components.
    In creating the cross-functional mission teams required by 
the provision, the Secretary would be required to consider all 
the major functions of the Department of Defense; that is, 
representation from OSD, the Joint Staff, the military 
departments, and the defense agencies in the functional areas 
of policy, strategy, intelligence, budget, research and 
engineering, procurement, manpower, logistics, cost assessment 
and program evaluation, test and evaluation, or any other 
functional area the Secretary deems appropriate given the 
team's assigned mission.
    The committee stresses that the mission teams must remain 
small and agile, numbering approximately 8-10 people. This is a 
critical point. One way that teams fail in DOD is that every 
organization that thinks its equities might be affected insists 
on having a representative on the group. This bloats and 
infiltrates the group with people who only care about 
protecting their parent organizations' equities.
    The provision would require that team leaders (1) be 
selected from among experienced and highly qualified military 
personnel in the grade of general or flag officer, or civilians 
from the Senior Executive Service, and report directly to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense; (2) be delegated the 
authority to select members of their teams from among 
candidates of any grade or rank recommended by all components 
of the Department; (3) be delegated the authority to require 
the full-time support from team members as the team leader 
considers appropriate, and to co-locate the team physically; 
(4) ensure that team members are properly trained in teamwork, 
resolving healthy conflicts between competing perspectives, 
collaboration, and that team members understand their role in 
representing the views and expertise of their functional 
components without inappropriately pursuing the narrow 
interests of their home organizations; and (5) are made 
available to the congressional defense committees to provide 
testimony and other forms of updates on the progress of the 
mission teams they manage.
    The provision would require the Secretary to approve the 
charter and internal planning strategy of each team, and to 
specify what, if any, decision-making authority the Secretary 
shall retain regarding the team's activities. The more 
authority the Secretary retains the more the Secretary will 
have to be involved in the team's ongoing activities. Otherwise 
the Secretary delegates authority to the teams to make 
decisions both with regard to drawing upon the resources and 
information of functional components, and making substantive 
decisions regarding the formulation and execution of their 
strategies. In this regard, the committee stresses that the 
team leaders shall have presumptive authority to draw upon the 
resources and information of the functional components of the 
Department. Without this presumptive authority the teams will 
not succeed. However, the provision also includes a ``right of 
appeal'' for the heads of components who believe that a mission 
team decision might have very serious adverse consequences for 
their components. The committee emphasizes that this right of 
appeal should be limited to principled, substantive concerns, 
and is not at all a license to protect narrow bureaucratic 
interests. The committee expects the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary to have little patience or tolerance for unprincipled 
appeals under this authority.
    The provision would require the Secretary to conduct a 
review of industry and government successes and failures with 
cross-functional teams, with the assistance of outside experts 
in organizational science and management to identify lessons 
learned for application to the Department's own mission teams.
    Regarding the challenge of changing the prevailing culture 
in the Department, the provision requires the Secretary to 
issue directives on (1) DOD's shared purposes, values, and 
principles that set forth the Secretary's expectations for a 
team-oriented, results-driven culture that supports DOD's key 
missions and cross-boundary collaboration; (2) the 
collaborative behavior the Secretary expects from all OSD 
personnel; (3) policies that establish cross-boundary 
collaboration as half of the performance review criteria for 
each official in leadership positions, including the mission 
team leaders and the heads of components providing personnel or 
other resources to the teams; and (4) policies requiring 
successful service as a leader or member of mission teams for 
promotion in the Senior Executive Service above a level to be 
specified by the Secretary. The Secretary would also be 
required to provide a course of instruction to all OSD 
officials who are Senate-confirmed in leadership, modern 
organizational practice, collaboration, and the proper 
functioning of successful cross-functional teams.
    The provision would require the next Secretary of Defense, 
within a year after Senate confirmation, to take such actions 
as the Secretary deems appropriate considering the progress and 
performance of mission teams, to streamline the organizational 
structure and processes of the Department, achieve a reduction 
in management layers, eliminate unnecessary duplication between 
OSD and the Joint Staff, and reduce the time required to 
complete standard processes and activities. In carrying out 
this requirement, the provision would require the Secretary to 
consult with the Defense Business Board and with outside 
individuals and organizations with recognized expertise in 
cross-functional teams, organizational science, and private-
sector best practices on horizontal integration and cross-
functional collaboration.
    The provision would require that nominees for Senate-
confirmed positions in OSD, as a condition of their 
confirmation, complete a course of instruction in leadership, 
modern organizational practice, collaboration, and the 
operation of mission teams. The President may waive this 
requirement for individuals if the Secretary of Defense 
determines in writing that the individual possesses through 
training and experience, the skills and knowledge otherwise to 
be provided by the course of instruction.
    Finally, the provision would require the Comptroller 
General to assess and report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate on a 
bi-annual basis the actions taken by the Department of Defense 
under this provision during the previous six months and 
cumulatively since the date of enactment of this Act. This 
requirement would end on December 31, 2019.
    The committee has determined that the Department must 
transform itself to more effectively and efficiently carry out 
its missions in the complex, rapidly changing security 
environment of the 21st Century. The Department needs a 
comprehensive roadmap to guide this critical transformation--a 
roadmap that describes the desired future state of the 
Department's organizational capacities and agility, actions 
needed to achieve this future state, the priority and 
sequencing of each action, and the pace at which the Department 
can implement them. The organizational strategy mandated by the 
committee will provide this roadmap. The strategy should 
address the entire defense enterprise and all elements of 
organizational effectiveness. Foremost among these is shared 
values which encompasses a vision for the Department, 
identification of missions, and an articulation of the 
principles by which the department will operate. The strategy 
should also address processes, structure, core competencies, 
talent management, organizational culture, and leadership 
behavior. The committee expects each of these elements to be 
addressed in the organizational strategy and in an integrated 
manner, so that there is a good fit among the elements.
    Although the new administration's Secretary of Defense must 
produce and own this organizational strategy, preparatory work 
in support of this strategy effort should begin immediately. 
The current Secretary of Defense should initiate research and 
analyses in each element of organizational effectiveness, such 
as identifying the characteristics of the Department's current 
culture and subcultures.
    This provision represents the fulfilment of an unfinished 
goal of the original Goldwater-Nichols reform agenda from 30 
years ago. The 1985 staff report of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Defense Organization: The Need For Change, 
identified ``mission integration'' as the most important 
organizational problem facing the Department. The report noted 
that mission integration is critical at both the operational 
level, consisting of the combatant commands, and at the policy-
making level in the Washington headquarters organizations of 
the Department. Ultimately, the Goldwater-Nichols Act was able 
to address the joint, mission integration challenge only at the 
operational command level; correcting the mission integration 
problems in the Washington headquarters organizations proved to 
be, in the words of the principal author of the staff study, 
``a bridge too far.''
    This critical task went unmet not for lack of analysis and 
effort. The staff study makes clear that the committee thought 
deeply about how to alter the organization and culture in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the processes 
through which OSD engaged with the Joint Chiefs, the Joint 
staff, the military services, and the combatant commands. The 
pursuit of a solution was ultimately deferred because the 
committee was not satisfied with the options available at the 
time. This conclusion was not surprising, because at that time 
even leading private-sector corporations had not determined how 
to effectively balance mission or ``product'' alignment against 
functional orientation, as the staff study observed. The 
committee evaluated mission-oriented organizational structures, 
matrix-management concepts, hybrid arrangements, and all manner 
of combinations thereof. Although the committee did not arrive 
at what it considered an effective solution, there is no doubt 
about the existence of a problem. The lack of mission focus and 
integration in DOD that existed 30 years ago has been only more 
acutely felt in the decades since, as national security 
challenges have become more varied, complex, and cross-cutting.
    The committee's indictment of DOD's almost exclusive 
functional organization and orientation in the mid-1980s 
retains its relevance today. The staff study observed that:
    The three principal organizations of the Washington 
Headquarters of DoD--the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Military 
Departments--are focused excessively on functional areas, such 
as manpower, research and development, and installations and 
logistics. This functional structure serves to inhibit 
integration of Service capabilities along mission lines, and, 
thereby, hinders achieving DoD's principal organizational goal 
of mission integration. The focus of organizational activity is 
on functional efficiency (or, in other terms, management 
control of functional activities) and not on major missions and 
their objectives and strategy. Without extensive mission 
integration efforts, numerous deficiencies occur:
    In colloquial terms, material inputs, not mission outputs, 
are emphasized.
    A sharp focus on missions, where DoD must compete with 
potential adversaries, is lost in the functional diffusion.
    Strategic planning is inhibited by the absence of an 
organizational focus on major missions and strategic goals.
    Service interests rather than strategic needs play the 
dominant role in shaping program decisions.
    Functions (e.g., airlift, sealift, close air support) which 
are not central to a Service's own definition of its missions 
tend to be neglected.
    Tradeoffs between programs of different Services that can 
both contribute to a particular mission are seldom made.
    Opportunities for non-traditional contributions to missions 
(e.g., Air Force contributions to sea control) are neither 
easily identified nor pursued.
    Headquarters organizations are not fully attuned to the 
operational, especially readiness, requirements of the unified 
commanders.
    Interoperability and coordination requirements of forces 
from the separate Services are not readily identified.
    Ultimately, the committee decided that none of the 
contemplated solutions to these problems was compelling enough 
to be mandated through the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Within a few 
years, however, new approaches to cross-functional integration 
developed by leading private-sector companies and industries 
began to sweep across the business world. Private-sector 
innovation with small but empowered ``cross-functional teams'' 
demonstrated that products and other critical company output 
could be developed much faster, and with significantly better 
results, than through sequential and iterative processes 
mediated by hierarchically structured functional silos. These 
new practices have also often eclipsed alternative approaches 
such as product lines that each incorporate functional 
capabilities, or complex matrixed solutions that combine 
functional and mission management. Industry use of small cross-
functional teams to enable integrated solutions does not 
supersede functional organization but rather builds on and 
complements the centers of functional expertise. The functional 
components grow and provide the experts and expertise that are 
the building blocks of integrated solutions.
    Industry success with this innovation in horizontal 
integration was neither easy nor guaranteed. Thorough cultural 
change was necessary to ensure a harmonious balance between 
functional and cross-cutting mission loyalties. Teams had to be 
given real authority to develop and implement strategies using 
the resources of the functional organizations, and functional 
leaders had to be convinced that their responsibility for 
providing functional capabilities remained critically 
important. Rewards and incentives had to be re-aligned to 
support teamwork among representatives of diverse functional 
components without diluting the career tracks that ensure 
functional excellence. Training in teamwork that allowed teams 
to resolve conflict productively proved to be a critical 
ingredient for success. Top management had to be fully 
committed to the work of the cross-functional teams, ensuring 
that they were not undermined by the managers of functional 
components, and making it clear that the integrated teams were 
decision-making bodies and not advisory ``committees.''
    Corporations learned that empowered cross-functional teams 
required complementary changes in organizational processes and 
culture, but also that once successful cross-cutting mechanisms 
were in place, they could manage large enterprises and complex 
processes with fewer management layers, less staff redundancy, 
and increased spans of control that permit end-to-end 
management of desired output (or outcomes) while increasing 
productivity and quality. Empowering integrated teams of 
experts with effective leadership eliminated the need for some 
management layers that previously served to progressively 
bridge functional silos to resolve disputes and make decisions. 
Instilling collaborative cultures improved information flow 
among organizational components so that there was less 
perceived need for functional redundancy (liaisons, various 
cross-cutting information sharing but powerless groups of one 
sort or another, or duplicative staff elements such as regional 
experts in each functional element, etc.). Initially adding 
cross-functional teams to existing functional structure seems 
more complicated, but over time it eliminates numerous 
ineffective organizational elements and thus reduces wasted 
staff time and simplifies the overall organizational construct.
    By the mid-1990s, Secretary of Defense Perry was aware of 
private-sector success with these horizontal integration 
mechanisms, and attempted to impose them in the Department of 
Defense. In 1995, he announced he was instituting a 
``fundamental change'' in DOD organization and culture by 
mandating the use of cross-functional/cross-organizational 
``Integrated Product Teams'' (IPTs). The ensuing directives 
establishing and defining these IPTs appear to be sound 
representations of industry practices. However, Secretary 
Perry's directives applied IPTs mainly to acquisition programs, 
and not to the missions--the core output--of DOD. In addition, 
and especially over time, the prerequisites for successful 
teams were not observed, so that they usually take the form of 
committees of individuals representing and defending the 
interests of their functional components.
    More broadly, the National Performance Review (NPR) that 
spanned both terms of President Clinton also took note of the 
global revolution in horizontal integration in the private 
sector. NPR reports decried the ``stovepiped'' functional 
structure and processes within individual departments and 
agencies, and noted that each department and agency of the 
government was in turn a functional stovepipe that inhibited 
effective interagency collaboration to achieve policy 
objectives. The NPR noted that the President was ill-served by 
this poor intra- and inter-agency collaboration, especially 
given that complex modern challenges inherently cut across 
organizational boundaries. The NPR called for empowered 
interagency teams and, within departments and agencies, cross-
functional teams to meet the need for integrated plans and 
actions.
    During the Bush Administration, General Pace, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, initiated a study effort that 
eventually became the congressionally funded Project on 
National Security Reform (PNSR), led by the former committee 
staff lead for the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A fundamental 
conclusion of PNSR's comprehensive analysis of the national 
security system is that effective strategy formulation and 
policy implementation are stymied by the lack of mechanisms to 
integrate across functionally aligned departments, components 
and interests. A core element of the PNSR reform agenda is 
empowered cross-functional teams in the interagency space. 
Other government-sponsored reviews have echoed these findings, 
including the 2006 interagency ``Project Horizon'' study, which 
recommended interagency ``fusion cells,'' and the 2010 
congressionally-mandated independent panel critique of the 
Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review, which 
recommended standing interagency teams.
    In addition, the committee notes that the Central 
Intelligence Agency is currently in the implementation phase of 
a major organizational reform initiative, which is based on the 
creation of small, empowered cross-functional teams from the 
Agency's functional directorates to support and manage the 
Agency's most important missions and mission centers. The 
Agency is undertaking this large-scale organizational reform to 
remedy precisely the same organizational limitations detailed 
in this report.
    The committee determined that OSD's culture is misaligned 
with what is required for effective organizational performance 
in today's security environment. The culture is too rule-
oriented, bureaucratic, risk averse in decision-making, and 
competitive among components. OSD's culture is typical of most 
public-sector institutions. In this regard, OSD's culture must 
be reshaped to one that is collaborative, team-oriented, 
results-oriented, and innovative. Reshaping a culture will 
require numerous efforts to establish new norms and behaviors 
and eliminate counterproductive norms and behaviors. These 
efforts include well-articulated shared values, management 
actions and behavior, organizational and individual incentives, 
and education and training. To begin these actions, the 
provision mandates the issuance of a directive on purposes, 
values, and principles; a directive on collaborative behavior; 
and a directive on OSD and Joint Staff collaboration. The 
provision includes two incentives for individuals. It would 
specify that cross-boundary collaboration would constitute 50 
percent of the performance review criteria for individuals in 
leadership positions specified by the Secretary of Defense. The 
provision would also require successful service as a leader or 
member of a mission team as a condition for promotion in the 
Senior Executive Service as specified by the Secretary. Lastly, 
the provision would require a course of instruction in 
leadership, modern organizational practice, collaboration, and 
functioning of mission teams by Senate-confirmed officials in 
OSD.
    The committee found numerous problems in OSD's structure 
and processes. Most notably, Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries 
of Defense feel poorly supported by the OSD staff. The numbers 
of management layers and senior personnel have continued to 
increase and until recently there was steady growth in the 
number of OSD personnel. Processes are sequential, stove-piped, 
and Industrial Age, resulting in slow, cumbersome, and 
frequently overly centralized decision-making. As a result of 
these problems, OSD is increasingly hard to manage, unwieldy, 
and underachieving. To correct this unacceptable situation, the 
committee's provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
take appropriate action to streamline OSD's structure and 
processes within one year of the Secretary's appointment. The 
Secretary would also be required to report his or her proposed 
actions to the two Armed Services Committees.
    The committee's proposed provision for fundamentally 
reforming the culture and processes in the Department of 
Defense is informed by decades of consistent analyses of 
serious management problems, and common recommendations for 
corrective actions. In turn, these analyses are informed by the 
consistent, long-term, and widespread private-sector success 
with mission-oriented horizontal integration mechanisms coupled 
with cultural change. The committee's proposal rests on 
extensive real-world experience that is reflected in modern 
organizational sciences and practices.
    The proposed provision complements the original Goldwater-
Nichols reform in several ways. In addition to being rooted in 
historical experience and organizational analysis, the 
provision is fundamentally about empowering rather than 
constraining the Department of Defense. The Goldwater-Nichols 
Act enabled Combatant Commanders to direct mission integration 
in joint military operations. This complementary provision will 
enable the Secretary to direct functional integration in major 
Pentagon output, including the best possible policy, strategy, 
planning, and resource allocation decision-making. These 
reforms are certain to be just as controversial as the original 
legislation, but as proved true for the original legislation, 
less so as their merits are demonstrated in practice. The 
results will be less immediately operational but no less 
apparent in improved output and outcomes.
    Successful implementation will depend on the commitment of 
the leadership in DOD to faithfully execute the proposed 
reforms, supported by vigorous and sustained oversight by 
Congress. The committee faced the same challenge 30 years ago 
after Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and to this 
day the committee ensures that every nominee seeking Senate 
confirmation has a full grasp of that historic legislation and 
his or her responsibilities to enforce and abide by the letter 
and spirit of the law. The committee intends to apply the same 
tenacious oversight to the current reform effort.

Department of Defense management overview by the Secretary of Defense 
        (sec. 942)

    The Department of Defense and the Congress have directed 
and launched multiple initiatives over the last 15 years to 
achieve cost savings and improve organizational effectiveness 
by downsizing personnel, streamlining bureaucracy, reducing 
institutional redundancy, and eliminating surplus 
infrastructure. While these efforts have met with some success, 
many of the results have been short-lived, fallen short of 
original goals, or failed to achieve their full potential. In 
an effort to streamline and move forward on reform initiatives, 
the Department of Defense leadership attempted to establish 
metrics and targets for downsizing and delayering. However, 
these efforts lacked a fundamental strategy for reform that 
would create an environment for change within the Department. 
The next administration will be challenged to implement key 
reforms to include headquarters reductions, major acquisition 
projects reform, implementing the new modernized military 
retirement system, delivering a military healthcare system that 
improves both access and care, and reforming the large, 
outdated structure designed with too many precautions and 
layers of bureaucracy. Major efforts must be undertaken to 
effectively manage the Department's large workforce. Business 
must be done differently as the Department of Defense and the 
Congress move forward with reforms.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
series of management directives for the next Secretary of 
Defense. The next Secretary of Defense is directed to report 
back to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives by December 1, 2017 with updates no 
later than December 1st of the next five years through 2022 on 
the following items:
          (1) Human Capital Strategy Plan. The Secretary of 
        Defense must develop a human capital strategy plan to 
        address how the Department of Defense civilian 
        workforce is to be managed over a period of five years 
        from the date of submission. Such plan shall include an 
        assessment of the mix of military, civilian, and 
        contractor personnel across the department by function.
          (2) Savings Targets. The Secretary of Defense shall 
        establish savings targets in coordination with the 
        military departments for personnel cost reduction 
        across the Future Years Defense Programs. Such savings 
        targets shall encompass and possibly exceed those 
        established in the National Defense Authorization Act 
        for Fiscal Year 2016 and be applied across the full 
        organization based on individual mission requirements 
        and not percentage targets by each organization within 
        the Department. The Secretary is directed to use cost 
        and function and shall not impose cost savings by 
        billets or raw number of personnel in an attempt to 
        manage and optimize a functional mix of senior, mid-
        career, and entry-level personnel rather than 
        preserving simply an imbalanced and top-heavy upper-
        echelon staff based upon tenure alone.
          (3) Elimination of Functions. The Secretary of 
        Defense shall submit a report of the elimination of 
        functions within each Department of Defense component. 
        The Secretary shall work with the Congress to launch 
        component reviews on mission priorities in tandem with 
        the Comprehensive Review of Headquarters and 
        Administrative and Support Activities mandated by the 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        2016.
          (4) Force Management Tools. The Secretary of Defense 
        shall submit legislative requests for additional force 
        management and shaping tools that necessitate 
        legislation and cannot be accomplished by policy. Such 
        management tools should be directed to accomplish the 
        savings targets and elimination of functions required 
        herein and should focus on rewarding talent, managing 
        hiring and divestiture of employees, and professional 
        development of employees.
          (5) Delayering and Organizations. The Secretary of 
        Defense shall develop a delayering process for 
        headquarters organizations across the Department of 
        Defense, to include the Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense, the Joint Staff, the defense agencies, the 
        combatant commands, and the Services. Such efforts 
        shall emphasize the use of cross-functional teams. The 
        Secretary shall submit plans for this delayering 
        process to include reorganizational plans and charts 
        that reflect the new structure and an assessment of 
        low-priority or redundant functions to be eliminated 
        and any organizations to be consolidated.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 181 to clarify and modify the joint and service 
specific requirements setting process. This provision would 
also ensure that the service chief of the relevant military 
service is responsible for all service-specific requirements, 
and Joint Requirements Oversight Council's validation is not 
required before commencing a service specific acquisition 
program, except in those cases that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff decided that service-specific requirement 
should be a joint requirement and still subject to the 
oversight of the Oversight Council, or in the case the program 
for meeting the requirement would be a major defense 
acquisition program.
    Additionally, this provision would require that the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff determine whether a major 
defense acquisition program may meet joint requirements before 
that program or subprogram may receive Milestone A approval or 
otherwise be initiated prior to Milestone B.
    The committee recognizes that the current organic 
capability of the Joint Staff to perform operations research 
analysis needed to inform making trade-offs among life-cycle 
cost, schedule, and performance objectives is not sufficient to 
the task. The Vice Chairman should rely upon the analytical 
support provided by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation in the Director's role as an advisor to the JROC. In 
the longer term, the Vice Chairman should also ensure that the 
Joint Staff selects officers for analytical support positions 
within the Joint Staff who are academically and professionally 
qualified to fill those positions.
    The committee heard testimony from numerous sources who 
indicated that the JROC process was broken. These assessments 
were frequently based on the fact that definitions and 
approvals of requirements have taken too long. There have also 
been charges that difficulties in coordinating principals' 
schedules have been a significant factor in forestalling timely 
JROC consideration and approval of requirements. This provision 
would shift the responsibility for making recommendations about 
military capabilities to meet applicable requirements from the 
JROC as a whole to the Vice Chairman alone. However, the Vice 
Chairman would have to inform the Chairman of dissenting 
opinions among the members of the JROC. This change in 
responsibility would allow the Vice Chairman to make a 
recommendation to the Chairman in a timely manner as well as 
when there is no consensus among the other members of the 
Council. This change would also be consistent with the 
principles of the Goldwater-Nichols Act--the Vice Chairman 
would be the principal advisor to the Chairman on military 
requirements, just as Goldwater-Nichols made the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff the principal military advisor to the 
President and the Secretary of Defense.

Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief of the National 
        Guard Bureau (sec. 944)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1058 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the 
personnel management authority of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau by authorizing the Chief to program for, appoint, 
employ, administer, detail, and assign federal civilian 
employees to provide full-time support to the non-federalized 
National Guard. This provision clarifies that state adjutants 
general will continue the exercise their authority to hire, 
employ, and supervise the federal civilian employees providing 
full-time support to their state.
    The Chief of the National Guard Bureau would also have the 
authority to delegate to the adjutants general the authority to 
appoint, employ, and administer federal civilian employees 
within the 54 states and territories with authority to conduct 
all personnel actions for employees except in the case of any 
appeal right or complaint filed by an employee appointed under 
this section. If such an appeal or complaint arises, the 
adjutant general shall be considered the head of the agency for 
the purposes of any appeal rights or complaint filed and the 
National Guard of the jurisdiction concerned shall defend such 
an appeal or complaint and promptly implement all aspects of 
any final administrative or judicial order, judgement or 
decision. The payment of any costs associated with such 
decisions would be paid out of federal funds appropriated to 
the jurisdiction concerned. Further, in the case of a civil 
action or proceeding brought in any court arising from an 
action under this provision, the United States shall be the 
sole defendant or respondent.

Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 
        945)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of 
National Intelligence, to carry out a pilot program to assess 
the feasibility and advisability of establishing a military 
division within the Directorate of Operations of the Central 
Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Director 
of National Intelligence would be required to assess whether it 
is more effective and efficient to contain the defense human 
intelligence capability within the Department of Defense or 
within the Central Intelligence Agency as a consolidated 
clandestine human intelligence collection organization.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 185 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the 
Department of Defense Financial Management Modernization 
Executive Committee.
    The committee notes that the Financial Management 
Modernization Executive Committee's original purpose has been 
functionally replaced by the Defense Business Systems 
Management Committee.

Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy and Office 
        of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs 
        (sec. 947)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1781(a) and 1781(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
to reorganize and redesignate the Office of Family Policy into 
the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy and the Office 
of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs 
into the Office of Special Needs. The provision would 
reorganize the Office of Special Needs under the Office of 
Military Family Readiness Policy. The provision would also 
require the director of the Office of Military Family Readiness 
Policy to be a member of the Senior Executive Service or a 
general or flag officer.

Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and regulations to 
        Department of Defense science and technology reinvention 
        laboratories and DARPA to improve operations and personnel 
        management (sec. 948)

    The committee has long recognized the unique contribution 
made by the defense laboratories to ensuring technological 
battlefield superiority for our fighters. While the committee 
has provided increased authorities and flexibilities for the 
laboratories to help them maintain their scientific pre-
eminence, these authorities must be implemented by the services 
in a manner that makes them useful. Equally significant, 
enhancing laboratory effectiveness also depends on the common 
sense removal of roadblocks such as inappropriate or 
counterproductive regulations, policies, and practices. With 
this in mind, the committee recommends a provision that would 
allow laboratory directors, as well as the director of the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with the approval of 
appropriate management officials, to waive on a temporary basis 
regulations, instructions, publications, policies, and 
procedures of the Department of Defense that the director 
believes appropriate.
    In recommending this waiver authority through this 
management demonstration pilot program, the committee 
emphasizes that lab management is not a centralized management 
function. Rather, the committee believes that in almost all 
cases, a laboratory director is best suited to determine which 
regulations and policies will make their organization most 
efficient and which will hamper its ability to function. The 
management demo recommended in this provision would identify 
and remove obstacles and fix improper implementation of 
legislative authorities so as to improve laboratory operations. 
Furthermore, the provisions would accomplish all of this within 
each service, thereby precluding direct involvement of the 
broader Department of Defense.

 Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections for Members of the Armed Forces


Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 961)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
numerous amendments to section 1034 of title 10, United States 
Code, to clarify and expand the types of adverse personnel 
actions prohibited under the military whistleblower protection 
program, to include retaliatory investigations and failures of 
superiors to respond to retaliatory actions in certain 
circumstances, as prohibited personnel actions reviewable under 
that statute. The provision would also require inspectors 
general (IG) to notify the secretary concerned if, during the 
IG's preliminary investigation, the IG determined there were 
reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel 
action occurred, and that the action would result in an 
immediate hardship to the service member, and would authorize 
the secretary concerned to take action, as appropriate, in such 
cases. The provision would require an IG to provide periodic 
updates to whistleblowers on the progress of investigations, to 
include an estimate of the time remaining until an 
investigation was complete. Finally, the provision would 
require the Department of Defense Inspector General, within 1 
year of enactment of this Act, to prescribe uniform standards 
for the conduct of military whistleblower investigations and 
for the training of staffs conducting such investigations.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that amends section 
1034 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that when the 
secretary of the military department concerned receives a 
report from an inspector general that substantiates that a 
prohibited personnel action occurred, the secretary may 
consider whether to take corrective action but may not make a 
determination in such cases that a prohibited personnel action 
did not occur.

Improvements to authorities and procedures for the correction of 
        military records (sec. 963)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that boards for correction of military records (BCMRs) notify 
claimants of what specific information or documents are needed 
to make their claim reviewable by the board, if such 
information or documents are missing, and would require the 
BCMR to make reasonable efforts to obtain missing records when 
they cannot be obtained by a claimant. The provision would 
require the BCMR to consider any request for reconsideration of 
a determination of a BCMR when new information is provided by a 
claimant, not previously considered. The provision would 
reaffirm that claimants may seek judicial review of BCMR 
decisions, and would require BCMRs to publish final decisions 
with personally identifiable information redacted. The 
provision would require each secretary concerned to develop, 
within 1 year of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 
training curriculum for members of BCMRs, and would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to 
ensure such curricula are uniform. Finally, the provision would 
require each secretary concerned to submit to Congress within 
18 months of enactment a report setting forth the training 
curriculum established under this section.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an 
assessment of the integrity of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
whistleblower program, to include an assessment of the extent 
to which the DOD whistleblower program meets executive branch 
policies and goals for whistleblower protections, the adequacy 
of procedures to address whistleblower complaints submitted by 
employees of the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense (OIG), the extent to which there have 
been violations of confidentiality standards, the extent to 
which there have been retaliatory investigations within OIG, 
the extent to which whistleblower complaints against Senate-
confirmed civilian officials of DOD have been substantiated and 
reported to Congress in the past 10 years, and the ability of 
the inspectors general of DOD and the military services to 
access agency information necessary to the execution of their 
duties, including classified and other sensitive information, 
and of the adequacy of security procedures to safeguard such 
information. The provision would require the Comptroller 
General to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives within 1 year of enactment 
of this Act on the results of this review.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Modification of requirements for accounting for members of the Armed 
        Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as 
        missing (sec. 971)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1501, 1505, and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, 
to elevate oversight of recovery policy and operations for 
current conflicts from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency 
(DPAA) to the Secretary of Defense, and to clarify that the 
DPAA director retains authority to establish policy and execute 
recovery operations for missing persons from past conflicts. In 
addition, this provision would clarify that the Department is 
required to account for missing persons only to the extent 
practicable upon discovery of remains of missing personnel.

Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense relating to 
        protection of the Pentagon Reservation and other Department of 
        Defense facilities in the National Capitol Region (sec. 972)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2674 of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to appoint law 
enforcement personnel to protect the Pentagon reservation and 
Department of Defense activities in the National Capital 
Region, and to set the rates of basic pay for law enforcement 
and security personnel whose permanent duty station is the 
Pentagon reservation.

Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense personnel and 
        innovation initiatives (sec. 973)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to take actions to allow the Defense 
Security Service to conduct before October 1, 2017, all 
personnel background and security investigations adjudicated by 
the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department of 
Defense (DOD). This provision would also strengthen inside 
threat detection programs by streamlining requirements for the 
collection, storage, and retention of information and would 
allow the Department to seek solutions from commercial 
companies and improve the process for the reciprocity of 
security clearances. The committee is encouraged by this 
reciprocity effort and expects that a path forward will be 
established for recently retired service members with security 
clearances to transfer their security clearances to their new 
positions rather than undergo duplicative background 
investigations.

                       Items of Special Interest


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

    Since 2012, the Army has been on course to reduce the 
Active component from 570,000 to 450,000 service members. In 
2015, as a part of the reduction in end-strength, the Army 
recommended that the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th 
Infantry Division (4-25 IBCT ABN) be converted to an airborne 
infantry battalion task force.
    The Army has continued to reassess its force structure 
requirements in light of the dynamic security environment and 
the evolving threats around the world. On March 21, 2016, the 
Army announced that it would postpone the conversion of the 4-
25 IBCT (ABN) citing the unit's readiness, capability, and 
strategic location to rapidly deploy to deter aggression from 
Russia, North Korea, and ISIL.
    The committee is aware that the senior leadership of the 
Army, and the current commanders of U.S. Northern Command, U.S. 
European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, in testimony before 
the committee, have publicly supported delaying the unit's 
conversion. The committee affirms that forward-deployed and 
rapidly responsive ground forces, including the 4-25 IBCT 
(ABN), help deter aggression and provide reassurance to our 
allies and partners. The committee encourages the Army to 
continue to reassess its force structure based on available 
resources and the changing global security environment.

Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations

    The committee recognizes the efforts of the commissioners 
and staff for their completion of the National Commission on 
the Future of the Army (NCFA) report and recommendations. Among 
other recommendations, the committee supports the 
recommendation of the NCFA to retain four Attack Reconnaissance 
Battalions (ARBs) in the National Guard as part of the Aviation 
Restructuring Initiative. The committee believes that this 
approach achieves the right balance in addressing the Army's 
current needs and providing the strategic depth of Army 
Aviation in the Army National Guard. The committee expects the 
Army to plan and program accordingly based on available 
resources across the Future Years Defense Program.

Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the Warfighter

    The Army provides a Military Intelligence Brigade-Theater 
(MIB-T) to each geographic combatant command. Operational 
Control (OPCON) of the MIB-Ts is delegated to the Army Service 
Component Commands, with administrative control (ADCON) 
assigned to the Army's Intelligence and Security Command 
(INSCOM). INSCOM's ADCON role for assigned MIB-Ts is to provide 
authorities, policy compliance, and reach-back support. The 
committee is concerned that the ADCON relationship is not as 
efficient as it needs to be, and notes that INSCOM headquarters 
has been growing as personnel are being reduced in the MIB-Ts. 
INSCOM's other roles and missions within the Army are no doubt 
important and demanding, but support to the combatant commands 
through assigned MIB-Ts is critical, especially in light of 
increasing threats to combatant command missions and personnel.
    Consistent with the committee's mandate to reduce 
management headquarters across the Department of Defense, the 
committee strongly urges the Army to streamline INSCOM's 
command and support relationship with the MIB-Ts and the 
commands they directly support to reduce administrative 
overhead, and to better align its military intelligence 
brigades with the warfighters they directly support and are 
often collocated with at the same installation.
    The committee strongly urges the Army to take actions to 
enhance military intelligence support across the spectrum in 
the U.S. European Command area of operations to more 
effectively provide military support to force protection, 
defeat transnational terrorism, enhance relationships with our 
NATO and non-NATO partners, and deter and defeat Russian 
aggression.

Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military Intelligence 
        Readiness Command

    The committee has directed the Department of Defense to 
take steps to eliminate overlapping and duplicative functions 
to better support the warfighter. The committee is concerned 
that there may be unnecessary overlap and duplication in the 
roles and responsibilities of the Army Reserve Component 
Military Intelligence Readiness Command (MIRC) and the Army's 
Intelligence and Security Command. In addition, the committee 
is concerned about the justification for planned growth in the 
MIRC headquarters and subordinate headquarters.
    The committee is informed that the Army plans to increase 
the size of MIRC headquarters from a one-star to a two-star 
headquarters and create two new brigade headquarters elements 
subordinate to the MIRC. The committee questions the need for 
such an expansion and for the creation of new brigade 
headquarters elements when the size of the reserve component 
continues to shrink, and when the committee has directed the 
Department to reduce the size wherever possible of headquarters 
organizations.
    The committee directs the Army to review the MIRC as a part 
of its headquarters reduction plan.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends the Army include its 
ongoing efforts to enhance active and reserve integration as a 
consideration of the MIRC within its headquarters reduction 
plan.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal 
year 2017 funds authorized in division A of this Act to 
unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal 
reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military 
personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar 
limitation in this provision.
Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis products for 
        the purpose of preparing financial statement audits (sec. 1002)
    The committee is concerned that over the last two decades, 
the Department has spent billions of dollars attempting to 
configure commercial-off-the-shelf information technology 
systems and build interfaces to hundreds of legacy information 
systems in order to prepare auditable financial statements. One 
of the many reasons for the Department's long-standing failure 
to pass an audit is its inability to produce transaction-level 
information for auditors.
    This provision would require the Department to 
competitively and rapidly procure information technology 
services, including non-relational database, data analysis, and 
data integration platforms to address the problems identified 
by auditors of Department of Defense financial statements.
    The committee notes that non-relational databases are 
database systems designed to process unstructured data and do 
not adhere to the traditional relational database management 
system structures, and may represent a useful approach to 
addressing these issues.
    The committee directs the Chief Financial Officer and Chief 
Management Officer to prepare a report to the defense 
committees on the status of this program. This report shall be 
delivered not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the statutory budget caps imposed by 
the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) remain an unreasonable and 
inadequate budgeting tool to address the Nation's fiscal 
challenges. The committee remains concerned about the harmful 
impacts of sequestration on our national defense, to include 
non-defense agencies that contribute to our national security. 
This provision acknowledges that relief from the BCA should 
include both defense and non-defense spending.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

Codification and modification of authority to provide support for 
        counter-drug activities and activities to counter transnational 
        organized crime of civilian law enforcement agencies (sec. 
        1006)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section 
1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1991 (Public Law 101-510), as most recently amended by section 
1012 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291). The provision would also make modifications to the types 
of support that may be provided with respect to foreign law 
enforcement.
Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and 
        counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 4 
years section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 
most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
    The committee strongly supports the vital partnership 
between the United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable 
security gains the Government of Colombia has achieved over the 
last 15 years. The committee believes that an enduring security 
relationship between the U.S. and Colombia is essential to 
sustaining and building upon these gains and urges the 
Department of Defense, in coordination with the interagency, to 
ensure its security cooperation programs and authorities 
reflect the evolving security environment in Colombia and the 
region.

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of cruisers or 
        dock landing ships (sec. 1011)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
fiscal year 2017 funds from being used to retire, prepare to 
retire, or inactivate a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, Whidbey 
Island-class dock landing ship, or Harpers Ferry-class dock 
landing ship, unless prescribed criteria are met.
    First, the Chief of Naval Operations would be required to 
certify to the congressional defense committees the requirement 
for operational cruisers, dock landing ships, and ballistic 
missile defense-capable cruisers from fiscal year 2017 through 
2030.
    Second, funds within the Ship Modernization, Operations, 
and Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) could only be used for 11 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers (CG-63 through CG-73) and 3 Whidbey 
Island-class dock landing ships (LSD-41, LSD-42, and LSD-46).
    Third, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
retain the current inventory of 22 cruisers and 12 dock landing 
ships until the end of their service lives with the following 
restrictions. Through fiscal year 2030, the Navy would be 
required to maintain not less than the Chief of Naval 
Operations' requirement for operational cruisers or 11 
operational cruisers, whichever is greater. The Navy would be 
required to maintain no less than the Chief of Naval 
Operations' requirement for dock landing ships or 9 operational 
dock landing ships, whichever is greater. The Navy would be 
authorized to conduct phased modernization of not more than 11 
cruisers and 3 dock landing ships.
    Fourth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
adhere to five requirements and five restrictions during the 
phased modernization period.
    Fifth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
submit an annual report with the President's budget on the 
status of the phased modernization program.
    Sixth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
notify the congressional defense committees in writing 30 days 
prior to executing any deviations to the plans provided in the 
most recent annual report.
    The committee does not support a smaller fleet and notes 
the Navy stands at 272 ships this year, far below the 308 ship 
requirement. However, the committee does recognize the fiscal 
pressure the Navy is under to maintain the readiness of the 
current force while continuing to modernize for future threats, 
including the requirement to procure the Ohio-class replacement 
submarine program. The committee also notes the Navy has fully 
funded this budget request's phased modernization plan, unlike 
past budget submissions. The committee would not be supportive 
of any effort to decommission any cruiser or dock landing ship 
earlier than provided for in this provision and views this 
provision as necessary to ensure the ships that enter phased 
modernization are returned to service.
Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime mine 
        countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
funds from being used to retire, prepare to retire, transfer, 
or place in storage any Avenger-class mine countermeasures 
ship, MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter, or associated equipment, as 
well as make any reductions to the manning levels of any 
Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship or Sea Dragon squadron 
or detachment.
    The Secretary of the Navy may waive this prohibition by 
certifying to the congressional defense committees that: (1) a 
replacement capability and the necessary quantity of such 
systems to meet all combatant commander mine countermeasures 
operational requirements that are currently being met has been 
identified, (2) all replacement systems have achieved initial 
operational capability (IOC), and (3) the Navy has deployed a 
sufficient quantity of replacement systems that have reached 
IOC to continue to meet or exceed all combatant commander mine 
countermeasures operational requirements currently being met.
    The committee is concerned that the Navy's current plan to 
reach IOC of replacement mine countermeasures systems is not 
scheduled to occur until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2020. However, the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 
the current Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships to begin 
retiring in fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned a 
capability gap in a critical warfighting mission area may 
result if current mine countermeasures systems are not 
maintained until operationally effective and suitable 
replacements are fielded.
    The committee looks forward to reviewing the Navy's plan to 
transition from legacy mine countermeasures systems, which is 
included in the mine countermeasures master plan required by 
section 1090 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This plan is required to 
be submitted annually beginning with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 
        individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
        Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1021)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, to the United States. The provision would expire on 
December 31, 2017.
Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify 
        facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred 
        from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 
        1022)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to construct or modify 
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred 
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 
provision would expire on December 31, 2017.
Designing and planning related to construction of certain facilities in 
        the United States (sec. 1023)
    The committee recommends a provision to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to use amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for the Department of Defense for designing and 
planning related to the construction or modification of 
facilities in the United States to house individuals detained 
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily 
        for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1024)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for 
necessary medical treatment that is not available at 
Guantanamo.
Authority for article III judges to take certain actions relating to 
        individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
        Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
judge of the United States District Court to have jurisdiction 
to use video teleconferencing to arraign, accept a plea to a 
charge from, and enter a judgment of conviction and sentencing 
against individuals held at Guantanamo. The provision would 
also authorize the Attorney General to transfer detainees to 
third countries to serve their sentences.

Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to 
        certain countries of individuals detained at United States 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1026)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, to Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen.

Matters on memorandum of understanding between the United States and 
        governments of receiving foreign countries and entities in 
        certifications on transfer of detainees at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1027)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require any 
certification by the Secretary of Defense provided pursuant to 
Section 1034(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) to 
include a requirement that the United States and the government 
of the foreign government of transfer have entered into a 
written memorandum of understanding regarding the transfer of 
the individual and the memorandum of understanding has been 
provided to the appropriate congressional committees.

Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, 
        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report on their terrorist 
        actions and affiliations (sec. 1028)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require, 
prior to transferring any individual detained at United States 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to any foreign government 
or entity, that the Secretary of Defense submit to appropriate 
committees of Congress a report on the individuals' previous 
terrorist activities, memberships in, affiliations, or 
associations with terrorist organizations, and a description of 
the individuals' support or participation in attacks against 
the United States or U.S. allies.

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals 
        detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
        to countries covered by Department of State travel warnings 
        (sec. 1029)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of funds to transfer any individual held at Guantanamo 
to a foreign country that is the subject of a State Department 
travel warning with certain exceptions.

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces at 
        or closure of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
        (sec. 1030)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to close or abandon 
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control 
of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a 
material modification to the Treaty between the United States 
of America and Cuba signed at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934, 
that constructively closes United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay.

              Subtitle E--Assured Access to Space Matters


Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation for 
        space launch of national security satellites (sec. 1036)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from launching any national security 
satellite with a launch vehicle requiring a rocket engine 
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 
from certifying any entity to bid for the award or renewal of a 
contract for the procurement of property or services for space 
launch activities for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
program if that entity would use a rocket engine designed or 
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    The committee believes that the continued use of Russian 
rocket engines is detrimental to national security and directs 
the Department of Defense to meet its space launch requirements 
by utilizing launch vehicles that do not require Russian rocket 
engines.
    The committee notes that the provision would explicitly 
exempt the nine Russian rocket engines allowed by section 
1608(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) from the prohibition that 
would be established by this provision.

Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation to 
        achieve assured access to space (sec. 1037)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2273(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that assured access to space be achieved without the use of 
rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian 
Federation.
    In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the 
Secretary of the Air Force each confirmed to the committee that 
the United States can meet its assured access to space 
requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. 
According to the Department of Defense Office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation, the steady-state cost of 
meeting assured access to space requirements without the use of 
Russian rocket engines should be similar to what we pay today. 
The committee believes that once the nine Russian rocket 
engines allowed by section 1608(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard 
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) are 
expended, the Defense Department is capable of meeting its 
assured access to space requirements by utilizing launch 
vehicles that do not require rocket engines designed or 
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 
that would allow for up to half of the funds made available for 
the development of a replacement launch vehicle or launch 
propulsion system to be made available for offsetting any 
increase in launch costs as a result of prohibitions on Russian 
rocket engines. With $1.2 billion budgeted from fiscal year 
2017 to fiscal year 2021 for the launch replacement effort and 
$453.4 million already appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and 
fiscal year 2016, the committee believes there is more than 
sufficient funding available and budgeted for either a 
replacement propulsion system or launch vehicle and also to 
offset any additional costs required in meeting our assured 
access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket 
engines.

Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines from the 
        Russian Federation for the evolved expendable launch vehicle 
        program (sec. 1038)

    The Committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 8048 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
Fiscal Year 2016 (division C, Public Law 114-113; 129 Stat. 
2363).

         Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 162 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
secretaries of the military departments, at the direction of 
the Secretary of Defense, to assign forces under the 
jurisdiction of the secretaries concerned to the combatant 
commands to perform missions assigned to the combatant 
commands. Forces that are not so assigned shall remain under 
the direction and control of the respective military department 
secretaries for purposes of carrying out the secretaries' 
responsibilities under sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 including 
organizing, training, and mobilizing of all United States 
military forces.

Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military strategy and 
        force posture in the United States Pacific Command area of 
        responsibility (sec. 1042)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
an independent review of United States policy in the Indo-Asia-
Pacific region, beginning in 2018 and occurring every four 
years thereafter. The report will be conducted by an 
independent organization with credentials and expertise in 
national security and military affairs.
    The independent review will include an assessment of the 
risks to United States national security interests in the 
United States Pacific Command area of responsibility, an 
assessment of the current and planned United States force 
posture adjustments in the region, an evaluation of any key 
capability gaps and shortfalls of the United States in the 
region, an analysis of the willingness and capacity of allies, 
partners, and regional organizations to contribute to the 
security and stability of the region, an appraisal of the 
Arctic ambitions of regional actors, an evaluation of theater 
security cooperation efforts, an evaluation of the seams 
between the United States Pacific Command and adjacent 
geographic combatant commands, and the views of noted policy 
leaders and regional experts.
    The committee recommends that the report be submitted to 
the Secretary of Defense no later than 180 days after the 
commencement of the review. The report should be submitted in 
unclassified form but may include a classified annex. No more 
than 90 days after the report is submitted to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary will submit it to the congressional 
defense committees with any comments the Secretary considers 
appropriate.

Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Port (sec. 
        1043)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require not 
later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Commanding General of the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and 
the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees assessing the 
future security requirements for one or more strategic ports in 
the Arctic. The provision would further require the Secretary 
to establish designation criteria for a Department of Defense 
``Strategic Arctic Port'' and submit recommendations for the 
designation of one or more such ports, including estimated 
costs for sufficient construction to initiate and sustain 
expected operations.

Modification of requirements regarding notifications to Congress on 
        sensitive military operations (sec. 1044)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 130f in title 10, United States Code.

Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to oversee the modeling of an alternative Army design and 
operational concept for the Reconnaissance Strike Group (RSG). 
The committee also would require a report no later than one 
year after the enactment of this bill that explicitly addresses 
the value of a follow-on pilot program to test further any 
promising alternative force designs and concept of operation.
    Emerging trends in technology and changes in the 
international security situation suggest that the Department of 
Defense should question the strategic assumptions that have 
underpinned its ground force structure and warfighting concepts 
for at least 25 years. Testing requires innovation. Innovation 
employs mature, off-the-shelf technology in creative, new and 
effective ways. The committee assesses the RSG has the 
potential, as designed, to be a testbed for full spectrum rapid 
prototyping--organizing construct, human capital strategy and 
equipment. As a prototype formation the RSG testbed is designed 
to explore new capabilities with smaller inventories of new 
systems before larger, Army-wide, investments are made.
    The provision requires, not later than 60 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of 
Defense shall direct an appropriate combatant commander to 
establish an office for the testing, evaluation, development 
and validation of the RSG's joint warfighting concepts, 
required platforms and structure. The selected combatant 
commander will submit a report describing the office structure, 
as well as, its programmatic goals and funding needs to the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and of the House of 
Representatives not later than 90 days after the establishment 
of the office and on a periodic basis to be determined at that 
time.
    The committee's recommendation is informed by the findings 
of the National Commission on the Future of the United States 
Army. Like the commission, the committee believes the Army 
should innovate and modernize. The Reconnaissance Strike Group 
is a concept that is fundamentally designed to be fully 
integrated in an expeditionary joint task force. It is 
organized and equipped for rapid deployment, reconnaissance, 
agile maneuver in dispersed formation, massed joint fires, 
sustainment, and survivability.

Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted aircraft by 
        enlisted personnel (sec. 1046)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Air Force, by September 30, 2019, to transition all remotely 
piloted aircraft (RPA) operations to an organizational model 
that uses enlisted personnel for the preponderance of RPA 
operators.
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has struggled 
for nearly a decade to integrate the medium-altitude 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission 
into its training infrastructure and organizational culture, 
and has taken the approach of organizing for the RPA mission 
and career field similarly to its manned combat aircraft 
squadrons. While divestments of combat aircraft over the past 
several years provided a temporary increase in available rated 
officers to operate RPAs, overall rated pilot shortages, 
especially for fighter aircraft, continue to plague the Air 
Force, and pilot shortages are anticipated to increase 
significantly as the commercial airline industry increases its 
pilot hiring.
    An April 2014 Government Accountability Office recommended 
the Air Force consider the use of enlisted personnel to operate 
its fleet of MQ-1 and MQ-9 aircraft, but the Air Force rejected 
that recommendation because, ``it decided that the 
responsibilities of piloting an RPA were commensurate with the 
rank of officers instead.'' Since that time, the Air Force 
still has not alleviated the manning shortfall for RPA pilots, 
causing its RPA pilot community to be overworked, feel 
underappreciated, and negatively impacting their morale. By the 
Air Force's own admission, these problems are creating a 
situation where reduced retention of its RPA pilot force is 
anticipated as RPA pilots reach the end of their service 
commitments in the coming years.
    Additionally, the committee believes the Air Force's 
rationale for rejecting enlisted RPA operators does not comport 
with the organizational construct used by the Army in their 
unmanned aircraft system operations, where enlisted personnel 
operate RPAs during both ISR and live-fire strike missions 
under the supervision of warrant officers and commissioned 
officers. The use of enlisted RPA operators opens a larger pool 
of potential applicants, reduces overall personnel costs as 
compared to using commissioned officers, and with the use of 
appropriate RPA control technologies, reduces the length of the 
training pipeline.
    Finally, the committee expects the Air Force to allow 
officers currently serving as RPA operators to continue to 
serve in those roles, if necessary, while transitioning to 
enlisted operators over time as new operators are accessed and 
trained, and to ensure that such officers continue to have 
opportunities for career progression and service.

Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and Rescue Units (sec. 
        1047)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation of appropriated funds to retire, prepare to 
retire, transfer or place in stowage any aircraft in Marine 
Corps Search and Rescue Units (SRU). The provision would also 
prohibit the reduction in manning levels with respect to any 
Marine Corps Search and Rescue unit.

Modification of requirements relating to management of military 
        technicians (sec. 1048)

    The committee recommends a provision that would delay the 
implementation date of section 1053 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) 
until October 1, 2017 and align the date of conversion for 
military technicians (non-dual status) with military 
technicians (dual status). This provision would also clarify 
that the positions to be converted are to be reviewed and 
determined by leadership from the Army Reserve, the Air Force 
Reserve, the National Guard Bureau, and the state adjutants 
general for purposes of implementation.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to 
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives by March 1, 2017, a report on the 
feasibility and advisability of converting any remaining 
military technicians (dual status) to personnel performing 
active Guard and Reserve duty under section 328 of title 32, 
United States Code, or other applicable provision of law. The 
report shall include the following: (a) An analysis of the 
fully-burdened costs of the conversion taking into account the 
new modernized military retirement system; and (b) An 
assessment of the ratio of members of the Armed Forces 
performing active Guard and Reserve duty and civilian employees 
of the Department of Defense under title 5, United States Code, 
required to best contribute to the readiness of the National 
Guard and the Reserves.

Support for the Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 
        for Military Affairs (sec. 1049)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence to ensure that the Associate Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency (ADMA) has access to, and support 
from, offices, agencies, and programs of the Department 
necessary for the ADMA to achieve its intended function. In the 
wake of the first Gulf War, the predecessor to the office of 
the ADMA was created to better integrate the Department of 
Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Since that 
time, the office, which is typically led by a general or 
admiral chosen by the Secretary of Defense, has played a key 
role in coordinating and communicating support between the two 
organizations. A strong and cooperative relationship is vital 
to the national security interests of the United States. This 
provision would enhance the Department's support to the 
position and confirm the importance of the enduring 
relationship between the CIA and the Department.

Enhancement of interagency support during contingency operations and 
        transition periods (sec. 1050)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to enter 
into an agreement allowing each Secretary to provide support, 
supplies, and services on a reimbursement basis, or by exchange 
of support, supplies, and services, to the other Secretary 
during a contingency operation and related transition period. 
The purpose of the provision would be to ease bureaucratic 
hurdles to interagency support and therefore increase both 
effectiveness and efficiencies in the provision of such 
support.

Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of military 
        training between Department of Homeland Security and Department 
        of Defense (sec. 1051)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the information 
needs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relating to 
civilian law enforcement activities in proximity to the borders 
of the United States are identified and communicated to the 
Secretary of Defense for the purposes of planning and executing 
military training. The provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that such military training conducted in 
proximity to the borders of the U.S. is coordinated with DHS. 
Further, the provision would require the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Secretary of Defense to create joint guidance 
to ensure information relevant to drug interdiction or other 
civilian law enforcement matters that is collected by the U.S. 
military during the normal course of military training or 
operations is provided promptly to civilian law enforcement 
officials in accordance with section 371 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    The committee notes that the U.S. military engages in 
realistic military training activities around the U.S. to 
simulate real world operational environments. The committee 
believes that in addition to supporting the readiness of U.S. 
military forces, such training can provide a secondary benefit 
to civilian authorities, particularly as it relates to 
increased situational awareness that would increase the 
effectiveness of drug interdiction and border security 
operations conducted by civilian law enforcement.
    The committee notes that section 371 of title 10, United 
States Code authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in accordance 
with other applicable law, to ``provide to Federal, State, or 
local civilian law enforcement any information collected during 
the normal course of military training or operations that may 
be relevant'' and further states that ``the needs of civilian 
law enforcement officials for information shall, to the maximum 
extent practicable, be taken into account in the planning and 
execution of military training or operations.''
    The committee is concerned that the mechanisms through 
which the Department of Defense (DOD) is made aware of the 
information needs of DHS and civilian law enforcement agencies 
as well as DOD's ability to coordinate its training operations 
is informal and ad hoc in nature. Accordingly, the committee 
believes that establishing a formal mechanism for the sharing 
of information and increasing coordination of military training 
operations along the borders with DHS is warranted.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
provision of defense sensitive support to non-Department of 
Defense departments and agencies until the Secretary of Defense 
determines and notifies the congressional defense committees 
that the support does not interfere with the mission and 
functions of the Department, or if it does so interfere, that 
it is in the national security interest of the United States. 
Additional guidance is provided in the classified annex that 
accompanies this bill and report.

Modification of authority to transfer Department of Defense property 
        for law enforcement activities (sec. 1053)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2576a of title 10, United States Code to modify the 
availability of defense items eligible for transfer and 
notification requirements.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 130e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to exempt information related to military 
tactics, techniques, and procedures from public disclosure if 
the information could reasonably be expected to risk impairment 
of the effective operation of the Department of Defense by 
providing an advantage to an adversary or potential adversary, 
and the public interest consideration in the disclosure of such 
information does not outweigh preventing the disclosure of such 
information.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 128 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to designate information as being 
Department of Defense critical infrastructure security 
information to ensure that such information is not disseminated 
without authorization. Certain Department of Defense critical 
infrastructure security information that is provided to a state 
or local government would remain under the control of the 
Department of Defense, and a state or local law authorizing or 
requiring a state or local government to disclose such 
information would not apply to such information, and any 
request for disclosure of such information must be provided to 
the Secretary to determine whether to exempt the information 
from disclosure.
    Certain sensitive but unclassified information, designated 
as critical infrastructure security information (CISI), is 
related to Department of Defense critical infrastructure. If 
CISI is disclosed and exploited, it would likely result in 
significant disruption, destruction, or damage of or to 
Department operations, property, or facilities. CISI can be 
shared with state and local governments to facilitate 
coordination during incidents, normal operations, or emergency 
response.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to acquire from any person any firearm, 
ammunition repair parts, or other supplies which were provided 
to any country on a grant basis.

Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth generation 
        airborne systems (sec. 1057)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate on the definition of and need for continued 
prioritization, development, and fielding of fifth-generation 
airborne capabilities.

Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical and clerical corrections to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 11492) and 
section 2431b of title 10, United States Code.

   Subtitle G--National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
                                Service


Purpose and scope (sec. 1066)

    The committee recommends a series of provisions that would 
create an independent National Commission on Military, 
National, and Public Service, including a provision to 
establish the purpose and scope of this Commission to consider: 
(1) the need for a military selective service process, 
including a continuing need for a mechanism to draft large 
numbers of replacement combat troops; (2) the means by which to 
foster a greater attitude and ethos of service among United 
States youth, including an increased propensity for military 
service; (3) the feasibility of modifying the military 
selective service process to obtain for military, national, and 
public service individuals with skills for which the Nation has 
a critical need, without regard to age or gender; and (4) the 
feasibility of including in the military selective service 
process, as so modified, an eligibility for one or more Federal 
benefits to incentivize the necessary education, training, and 
service to fulfill such critical needs.

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (sec. 
        1067)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service as an independent commission. The provision would 
prescribe the manner and timing in which the Commission would 
be appointed, its composition, pay rates for members and staff, 
and would provide sundry other authorities attending to the 
operation of the Commission as an independent entity.

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 
to conduct public hearings (except classified hearings) on 
recommendations under consideration, and that such hearings be 
noticed on a public website at least 14 days in advance. The 
provision would require the Commission to hold its first 
meeting withing 30 days after all members have been 
appointment.

Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations (sec. 1069)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President, within 3 months after the establishment date of the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, 
to establish and transmit to the Commission and Congress 
principles for reform of the military selective service 
process, including the means by which to best acquire skills to 
meet the military, national, and public service requirements of 
the country. The provision would require these Presidential 
principles to address: (1) whether, in light of the current 
global security environment, there continues to be a need for a 
selective service process designed to produce large quantities 
of combat troops, and if so, whether that system should include 
mandatory registration by citizens and residents regardless of 
gender; (2) the need, and how best to meet the need, of the 
Nation, the military, the Federal civilian sector, and the 
private sector (including the non-profit sector) for 
individuals possessing certain critical skills and abilities, 
and how to best employ individuals with those skills and 
abilities; (3) how to foster within the nation, particularly 
among the nation's youth, an increased sense of service and 
civic responsibility to enhance the acquisition of critically 
needed skills through education and training, and how best to 
acquire those skills for military, national, and public 
service; (4) how to increase propensity among the nation's 
youth for service in the military, or alternatively in national 
or public service, including how to increase the pool of 
qualified applicants for military service; (5) the need in 
government to increase interest, education, and employment in 
certain critical fields, including particularly science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics, national security, 
cyber, linguistics and foreign language, education, health 
care, and the medical professions; and (6) how military 
national, and public service may be incentivized, including 
through educational benefits, grants, Federally-insured loans, 
Federal or State hiring preferences, or other mechanisms the 
President considers appropriate. The provision would require 
certain cabinet officials and other officials or experts to 
transmit to the Commission and Congress recommendations for the 
reform of the military selective service process, and military, 
national, and public service in connection with that process.

Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service to appoint, and fix the rate of pay of, an Executive 
Director and staff. The provision would limit detailees from 
Executive Branch agencies to no more than one-third of the 
personnel employed by the Commission, and would prohibit the 
detail of executive branch employees to the Commission who in 
the year prior to the detail were substantially involved with 
the development of recommendations provided to the Commission.

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071)

    The committee recommends a provision that would preclude 
the actions of the President, cabinet officials and other 
individuals required to provide recommendations under this 
subtitle, and the Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service from judicial review of their actions taken under this 
subtitle.

Termination (sec. 1072)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the termination of the National Commission on Military, 
National, and Public Service no later than 36 months after the 
Commission establishment date.

Funding (sec. 1073)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2017, $15.0 million be 
available to the National Commission on Military, National, and 
Public Service until expended to carry out its duties under 
this subtitle.

                    Subtitle H--Studies and Reports


Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and the 
        combatant commands (sec. 1076)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
military service chiefs and the commanders of the individual 
functional and geographic combatant commands to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a list, in priority order, of the unfunded 
requirements for each individual service branch or combatant 
command no later than 25 days after the date on which the 
budget for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. This provision 
would repeal section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces (sec. 1077)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to oversee a comprehensive assessment of the joint ground 
forces. The committee would require this report no later than 
one year after the enactment of this act. The report should 
explicitly address capability and capacity gaps that threaten 
the successful execution of decisive, operational-maneuver in a 
joint context.
    The committee's recommendation is informed by the findings 
of the National Commission on the Future of the United States 
Army (NCFA) and the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
report of April, 2016. The committee notes that both the 
commission and GAO identified critical capability gaps needed 
for operational theaters.
    The committee is concerned our ground forces are not 
properly balanced and are incurring unacceptable risks to 
mission and forces. The committee is also concerned the 
drawdown in Army end strength is fomenting much of this loss of 
capability and capacity. Further, the committee is concerned 
that reported readiness levels of both the Army and Marine 
Corps make this potential situation more complicated. It may 
impact the United States' ability to rapidly deploy a campaign 
quality force with available forces.
    This assessment and report must identify gaps in critical 
combat capabilities. The committee is concerned about potential 
gaps in armed reconnaissance, armor, combat engineers, cluster 
munitions, and long range field artillery capable of standoff 
attack and counter fires. Of particular concern is 
comprehensive air defense. The committee would like to know if 
our forces have the capability to protect themselves from all 
aerial threats from enemy aircraft and theater ballistic 
missiles to remotely piloted vehicles.
    The committee also requires the assessment to address gaps 
in essential combat support and service support capabilities, 
including electronic warfare, chemical, biological, 
radiological, and nuclear reconnaissance, detection and 
decontamination, water and fuel distribution, military police, 
and transportation. The committee shares the NCFA's concern 
about the lack of transportation assets to move the equipment 
of combat and construction engineer battalions. Also, given the 
amount of infantry units across the Army and Marine Corps, the 
committee is concerned about the adequacy of available ground 
transportation to move and sustain these light forces.
    Given the comprehensive nature of the report the committee 
would also like to be made aware of any redundancies and 
obsolete capabilities. In the end, the committee would be 
interested in recommendations to rebalance the joint force to 
maximize total available end strength, force structure and 
technology. This assessment should be made within the context 
of current force demands, current and emerging threats, forces 
available, and readiness. The committee intent is to ensure our 
ground forces have the needed capabilities and capacities to 
execute successful operational, all arms maneuver with all 
needed theater-level sustainment and support.

Report on independent assessment of the force structure of the Armed 
        Forces to meet the national defense strategy (sec. 1078)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to obtain and submit to Congress a report 
by an independent organization that assesses the threats to the 
United States, potential conflicts arising from those threats, 
likely Department of Defense responses to those threats, and 
the Department of Defense force posture, systems, and programs 
required to execute such responses. The report would also 
require an assessment of the ability of the forces to meet the 
day-to-day requirements of the commanders of the combatant 
commands.

Annual report on observation flights over the United States under the 
        Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the previous year's 
observation flights over the United States under the Open Skies 
Treaty. The report should include (a) a description of the 
flight path of the observation flight; (b) an analysis of 
whether any critical infrastructure of the United States was 
subject of image capture activities of the observation flight; 
and (c) a description of the costs imposed on the Department of 
Defense and other relevant agencies by the observation flight.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide certain reports and 
notifications regarding programs that DOD manages under 
alternative compensatory control measures (ACCM).
    The Department of Defense typically uses the ACCM system to 
manage program of lesser sensitivity or programs with a less 
enduring life than the programs that it manages under special 
access (SAP) program channels.
    The committee believes that DOD needs to provide more 
rigorous oversight of and reporting on ACCM programs. Despite 
several directions from Congress to the DOD to produce better 
information and inventories of these programs, DOD has failed 
to do so.
    Therefore, the committee sees no alternative but to include 
legislation on the matter.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would add the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives to a reporting requirement under 50 U.S.C. 
3038(c) that allows the Defense Intelligence Agency to use 
limited funds without regard to the provisions of law or 
regulation relating to the expenditure of U.S. Government 
funds.

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 
        statutory requirement is from an amendment made by an annual 
        national defense authorization Act (sec. 1082)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirements for several reports that are mandated by an annual 
National Defense Authorization Act and by other public laws.

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 
        statutory requirement is specified in an annual national 
        defense authorization Act (sec. 1083)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
several requirements for the Department of Defense to provide 
reports that have been added by an annual National Defense 
Authorization Act.

Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for the civilian 
        personnel workforce and service contractor workforce of the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1084)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 955 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

                       Subtitle I--Other Matters


Military service management of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 
        1086)

    The committee recommends a provision that would 
disestablish the F-35 Joint Program Office and devolve relevant 
responsibilities to the Air Force and the Navy. The committee 
believes the current management structure of the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter program is in need of change. The F-35 program's 
original operational requirements called for 70-90 percent 
commonality between the three variants. In reality, even the 
Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, 
General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are 
only 20-25 percent common, primarily in their cockpits. The Air 
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps each fly primarily a single 
variant and have different roles and missions, concepts of 
operations, and deployment requirements, all leading to highly 
different priorities for F-35 capabilities, capacity, 
maintainability, and follow-on modernization. International 
partners have needs and priorities that differ even further 
from the U.S. military services. These forces, coupled with the 
lack of commonality, have led to a situation in which, as 
General Bogdan stated in 2013, ``We have three airplane 
programs running in parallel.'' Indeed, as recently as April 
2016, in reference to the 2,590 Joint Program Office and 
Integrated Test Force personnel, General Bogdan stated ``I 
don't know if that's enough or not, or if it's too much. It's 
what we have. You ought to look at the F-35 numbers and 
remember that we're building three variants for 14 customers, 
so maybe it's not a bad size for three programme offices.''
    The committee is concerned the program management structure 
currently in place was established for a commonality in 
variants that never materialized, is ill-suited to meet the 
current and future requirements and priorities of the services 
and international partners, and prevents the true alignment of 
responsibility and accountability within the services and the 
Department of Defense as a whole.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than 6 months after the F-35 Milestone C decision 
(currently scheduled for April 2019) to disestablish the Joint 
Program Office and devolve relevant responsibilities to the 
Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy. The 
Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy 
shall establish separate program offices to manage the 
production, sustainment, and modernization of their respective 
aircraft. The Air Force shall manage all aspects related to the 
F-35A variant and the Navy will manage all aspects related to 
the F-35B and F-35C variants. The Air Force and Navy will 
establish processes to coordinate on issues where commonality 
exists. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than February 1, 2017, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report outlining the Department's 
implementation plan. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Governmental Accountability Office to review the Department's 
plan and to brief the congressional defense committees on their 
findings within 90 days of the report's submission.
    The committee believes that the current consensus-driven 
management structure of the Joint Strike Fighter program is 
ill-suited to what are in essence three separate aircraft 
programs, has led to aircraft that do not fully meet its 
customers' needs, and stifles the proper alignment of 
responsibility and accountability. The committee believes the 
Department must act now to begin implementing necessary 
changes.

Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F-35 joint strike fighter 
        as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 1087)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to treat the F-35 Follow-on Modernization 
program as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP). 
The committee strongly supports the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
program and efforts to ensure F-35 capabilities outmatch any 
potential adversary for the decades the F-35 will be in our 
tactical aviation force. However, the committee is concerned 
that the decision by the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to manage F-35 Block 4 
development under the existing F-35 acquisition program will 
limit the transparency, accountability, and oversight required 
for a program as large and as important to our future combat 
capability as the F-35.
    The first increment of modernization, Block 4.1, is 
scheduled to enter the fleet in fiscal year 2020, with 
subsequent increments following every 2 years through delivery 
of increment 4.4 in fiscal year 2026. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the Department will spend 
nearly $3.0 billion on F-35 follow-on development efforts over 
the next 6 years alone, easily exceeding the statutory and 
regulatory thresholds for a MDAP. The committee believes the 
reporting and oversight mechanisms required of a MDAP, such as 
a business case analysis and cost, schedule, and performance 
reporting, are necessary for Congress and our international 
partners in the Joint Strike Fighter program to provide quality 
oversight for a long-term, multi-billion dollar program.
    The committee believes the F-22 Raptor program offers an 
instructive lesson in the dangers of managing an expensive and 
complicated modernization program under an existing program 
baseline. The committee believes the Department should heed 
that lesson and avoid repeating mistakes of the past.

Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and carrier air 
        wing headquarters required to be maintained (sec. 1088)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5062 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
number of air wings required to be maintained and fully staffed 
from 10 to 9.
    While the committee does not believe cutting naval aviation 
infrastructure is advisable in the current security 
environment, inadequate funding for defense prevents the 
Department of the Navy from funding all necessary requirements. 
Should adequate funding become available, the committee intends 
to repeal this provision.

Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089)

    The committee recommends a provision that would streamline 
the statutory requirements of the National Security Council 
(NSC) and limit the size of the NSC professional staff to no 
more than 150 individuals, which includes detailees and 
assignees from other agencies and contractors. The purpose of 
this provision is to return to the intended statutory purpose 
of the NSC and to correct constitutional separation of powers 
concerns when the NSC staff, which is presently shielded from 
congressional oversight, conduct operations or activities that 
are appropriate for departments led by individuals holding 
Senate-confirmed positions.
    The National Security Council was established by the 
National Security Act of 1947 (P.L. 235-61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 
402) and amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 
1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) By establishing the 
NSC in statute, Congress sought to create an enduring 
institutional structure to assist the president in setting 
strategic guidance, coordinating U.S. foreign and defense 
policy, and facilitating interagency cooperation and 
integration on national security matters. The statute also 
specifically authorized a NSC staff to be headed by a civilian 
executive secretary appointed by the President.
    Since its establishment, NSC internal meeting structures 
and processes of the NSC have varied, reflecting the decision-
making style and leadership of the president. Yet, over the 
last couple decades, one attribute has remained true under 
administrations of both parties: the size of the NSC staff has 
consistently grown.
    That growth has been influenced by additional committees 
and participation requirements created in statute for the NSC. 
These congressional additions have only added to the growth of 
the NSC staff. The growth in staff and statutory requirements 
has not, however, resulted in a more effective decision-making 
process. In fact, the enlarged staff and burdensome statutory 
requirements have undermined the original congressional intent 
of the statute, which was to provide a mechanism for strategic 
and coherent national security policy making. Indeed, a larger 
NSC staff has created bureaucratic inefficiencies, incentivized 
staff involvement in operational and tactical national security 
decisions, weakened national security prioritization, and 
undermined the strategic guidance that the country's national 
security apparatus requires to integrate and implement policy 
successfully.
    The personnel limitations in this provision would not apply 
to staff that are designated as wholly administrative or 
technical support staff.

Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 1090)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
each national security strategy report as required by section 
108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043) to be 
transmitted in classified form. Such report may contain an 
unclassified summary.

Border security metrics (sec. 1091)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop metrics to measure 
the effectiveness of security at ports of entry, between ports 
of entry, and in the maritime environment not later than 120 
days after the enactment of this Act.
    The committee believes that the establishment of such 
metrics will enhance the ability of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to assess its progress in securing the borders 
of the United States by using consistent, regular and robust 
border security performance measures. Additionally, the 
committee believes that the creation of such metrics will not 
only enhance the ability of DHS to more accurately measure the 
effectiveness of its operations along the borders, but also 
will better inform its coordination with, and requests for 
support from the interagency, including the Department of 
Defense.

Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army Marketing 
        Research Group (sec. 1092)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
all marketing functions of the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and 
Army National Guard within the Army Marketing Research Group no 
later than October 1, 2017.
    The committee notes that the National Commission on the 
Future of the Army recommended consolidation of marketing 
functions under the authority of the Army Marketing Research 
Group to ensure unity of effort across all three Army 
components.
    The committee strongly supports the Commission's 
recommendation. The committee believes that marketing of the 
United States Army should be a Secretariat responsibility as 
the authority, direction, and control for all three Army 
components rests with the Secretary of the Army. Additionally, 
consolidation of marketing functions will allow for unity of 
effort, as identified by the Commission, and also ensures a 
strategic approach to marketing to maximize efficiencies, 
eliminate duplication and cross-messaging, provide appropriate 
oversight of advertising initiatives, and continue to build 
upon one Army message to the American public.
    The committee understands that marketing is an important 
component of the Army's ability to increase and sustain public 
understanding of military service and to articulate the value 
of service in the Army in defense of our nation. The committee 
notes that marketing plays an important role in the recruitment 
of soldiers, particularly during the last 14 years of conflict.

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia 
        (sec. 1093)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 7882 to title 10, United States Code, to prohibit a 
person from using any covered Naval Special Warfare insignia in 
connection with any promotion, service or other commercial 
activity when a particular use would be likely to suggest a 
false affiliation, connection, or association with, endorsement 
by, or approval of, the United States, the Department of 
Defense, or the Department of the Navy, and to authorize the 
Attorney General to initiate civil proceedings to prevent 
unauthorized use of such insignia.

Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown 
        Soldier (sec. 1094)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a program to commemorate the 
100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC-46A aircraft 
        (sec. 1095)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Congress regarding the basing of KC-46A tanker 
aircraft outside of the continental United States.

Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national defense 
        strategy (sec. 1096)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense 
committees, in January of each year, a national defense 
strategy. The new national defense strategy would replace the 
report known as the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The 
committee concluded that the length of time needed to develop 
the QDR made the report irrelevant to actual national security 
decision-making because the national security environment 
evolved more quickly than the review process.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees a defense 
strategy, in classified form, that addresses the highest 
priority missions for the Department of Defense, the most 
critical and enduring threats to the national security of the 
United States and its allies posed by states or non-state 
actors, and the strategies that the Department will use to 
counter those threats. The report would also have to discuss a 
strategic framework to prioritize these missions and threats as 
well as discuss the major investments that the Department will 
make over the following five-year period to match that 
strategic framework. The Secretary would be required to seek 
the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 
preparing each defense strategy. An unclassified summary would 
accompany the strategy.
    The more frequent review and development of a classified 
guiding strategy document would more rapidly develop the 
necessary level of detail on threat actors and corresponding 
strategies, resource requirements, and programmatic, readiness, 
and posture needs, and would therefore provide Department 
officials greater and more timely guidance in the execution of 
the strategies laid out in the report and the broader 
furtherance of their duties. The requirements in statute for 
the National Defense Panel would remain, but be required every 
four years rather than every two years to provide an 
independent assessment of the Department's threat assessments, 
strategies, and frameworks linking ends, ways, and means.

                       Items of Special Interest


Air Force training with partner nations

    The committee is aware that the German Air Force recently 
decided to terminate its contract with the U.S. Air Force that 
has allowed the German Air Force to operate a tactical training 
center at Holloman Air Force Base (AFB) . The current contract 
will end in 2019. The German Air Force presence peaked in 2005 
with 850 personnel and 38 Tornado aircraft.
    The German Air Force presence in the United States 
supported the strategic alliance between our two nations and 
created unique and valuable training opportunities between our 
two militaries. Given that the current arrangement is ending, 
the committee encourages the Department of Defense to explore 
other ways in which the German Air Force might continue its 
presence at Holloman AFB.
    If the Department and the German Air Force are unable to 
achieve an understanding about a long-term presence by the 
German Air Force in the United States, the committee encourages 
the Department to examine training opportunities with other 
partner nations that would utilize the weather, terrain, 
airspace, and infrastructure available at Holloman AFB.

Arctic Search and Rescue

    The committee is aware of the expanding access to the 
Arctic region due to diminishing sea ice, including an increase 
in shipping traffic along the Northern Sea Route, the Northwest 
Passage, and potentially, a transpolar route. The committee is 
concerned with the limited capabilities of the United States to 
conduct search and rescue operations throughout the Arctic 
region. The committee understands the Alaska National Guard has 
developed an air-dropped, palletized, Arctic Sustainment 
Package (ASP) to enable the survival of twenty-five individuals 
for three days in harsh Arctic conditions. This package is 
deployable over vast distances--both over water and over land--
and is suitable to sustain life in the High Arctic environment. 
The Alaska National Guard currently possesses two ASPs, but 
additional units could be beneficial.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to develop a plan for identifying Arctic search and rescue 
requirements, resourcing such capabilities, including those 
like the ASP, and developing the tactics, techniques, and 
procedures required to employ these capabilities. The committee 
directs the Secretary to provide both a written plan and 
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 
180 days following the enactment of this Act.

Army Modernization Strategy

    The committee directs the Chief of Staff of the United 
States Army to develop a comprehensive modernization strategy 
for the total Army. This strategy should explicitly address the 
Army's vision, end-state, key objectives, war fighting 
challenges, and risks. It should be sufficiently descriptive to 
drive requirements, set priorities, identify opportunity costs, 
and establish time lines. The committee assesses that a 
comprehensive strategy would give strategic purpose to existing 
acquisition programs and branch specific strategies. It could 
also provide the Army an understanding of potential long term 
costs beyond the future year defense program and aid in the 
decision-making process to terminate unneeded or 
underperforming programs. The committee directs this strategy 
to be submitted with the Presidential Budget for the National 
Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2018.
    The committee is concerned the Army is woefully behind on 
modernization. The committee believes the Army must modernize 
for the harsh realities of 21st century warfare. Our soldiers 
must be trained, organized and equipped for an increasingly 
diverse and complex range of threats. They must be able to win 
against peers in highly lethal, combined arms maneuver; against 
near peers in hybrid warfare conditions; and against 
determined, unconventional insurgents. The committee notes 
other armies, including potential adversaries, are modernizing 
at a rapid pace.
    The committee notes that the Army has published numerous 
strategies for specific programs such as small arms, tracked 
combat vehicles, wheeled vehicles and aviation. Yet the Army 
does not possess an all-encompassing modernization strategy 
that provides purpose and priority to the above. Given that the 
Army expends tens of billions of dollars on procurement, 
research, development, testing and evaluation each year, the 
committee views a comprehensive Army modernization strategy as 
essential.
    The committee acknowledges the Army remains engaged in 
active operations across the world and accordingly has made 
readiness its first priority. However, the committee assesses 
modernization as a critical requirement for readiness in the 
very near future. Modernizing while supporting operational 
demands is not easy, but it has been done before. Army leaders 
like General Abrams transformed the Army before. They restored 
the discipline and morale of the force in the aftermath of the 
Vietnam War. They transitioned the Army to an All-Volunteer 
Force while revolutionizing training doctrine. And they built 
an Army that won the Cold War and removed Saddam Hussein from 
Kuwait.

Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

    The committee notes the Department of Defense's plans to 
meet the needs of the combatant commanders by increasing the 
number of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Combat Air Patrols 
(CAPs) in part through an increase of Army UAS units to 
accommodate as many as 16 Army UAS CAPs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 
120 days after the enactment of this Act a report on how the 
Army plans to increase its training resources for its Shadow 
and Gray Eagle platforms, improve facilities, and protect its 
training ranges to support the growth of Army UAS CAPs. This 
report shall also include an analysis on the need for the Army 
to re-establish an Army UAS Center of Excellence given the 
increased role for Army UAS training and operations.

Comptroller General assessment of national defense implications of the 
        next generation air traffic management system

    The committee is concerned with the potential national 
defense implications of the next generation air traffic 
management system, specifically with the main component of the 
system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 
(ADS-B).
    The committee recognizes the significant safety, cost, and 
efficiency advantages of ADS-B operations over the legacy 
system of air traffic control radar surveillance of air 
traffic. ADS-B enhances system situational awareness, collision 
avoidance, runway and airport airspace incursion avoidance, and 
the ability to implement air traffic control in non-radar 
environments, such as sparsely populated areas and oceanic 
surveillance. ADS-B also contributes to more direct aircraft 
routing and optimized departures and approaches, which increase 
capacity and save time and fuel. Finally, ADS-B infrastructure 
relies on simple ground and airborne radio equipment that is 
significantly cheaper to install and maintain than the 
mechanical infrastructure associated with traditional radar 
ground stations.
    The committee is concerned that many of the characteristics 
that give ADS-B operations its significant advantages also 
expose potential vulnerabilities for exploitation by entities 
or individuals with nefarious intent. An inexpensive software-
defined radio, a laptop computer, and a small nondescript 
antenna are all that are needed to monitor and potentially 
exploit extremely accurate, real-time aircraft position and 
operations details that are continuously broadcast using 
unencrypted digital encoding.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a study, with preliminary 
observations due no later than March 3, 2017 and a final report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives to follow. The assessment by the Comptroller 
General should include:
          (1) Implications for ADS