Senate Report 115-262 - THE JOHN S. McCAIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

[Senate Report 115-262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 439
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-262
_______________________________________________________________________

THE JOHN S. McCAIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019

R E P O R T

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2987]

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 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

----------

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

June 5, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

Calendar No. 439
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-262
_______________________________________________________________________

THE JOHN S. McCAIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2019

R E P O R T

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2987]

__________

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

June 5, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30-285 WASHINGTON : 2018

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TIM KAINE, Virginia
TED CRUZ, Texas ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
BEN SASSE, Nebraska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
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
Preamble to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019........................................... 3
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority
Implication.................................................... 6
Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)........................... 6
DIVISION A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 7
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 7
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 7
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 7
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 7
Deployment by the Army of an interim cruise missile
defense capability (sec. 111).......................... 7
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 8
Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet and EA-18G aircraft program (sec. 121).......... 8
Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
(AHE) aircraft program (sec. 122)...................... 8
Extension of limitation on use of sole-source
shipbuilding contracts for certain vessels (sec. 123).. 8
Prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port
waterborne security barriers (sec. 124)................ 9
Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-6
(sec. 125)............................................. 9
Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral
Combat Ship (sec. 126)................................. 10
Nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers (sec. 127)........ 10
Limitation on funding for Amphibious Assault Vehicle
Product Improvement Program (sec. 128)................. 10
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 11
Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of E-
8 JSTARS aircraft (sec. 141)........................... 11
B-52H aircraft system modernization report (sec. 142).... 11
Repeal of funding restriction for EC-130H Compass Call
Recapitalization Program and review of program
acceleration opportunities (sec. 143).................. 12
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 12
Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft
program (sec. 151)..................................... 12
Quarterly updates on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
program (sec. 152)..................................... 12
Authority to procure additional polar-class icebreakers
(sec. 153)............................................. 14
Budget Items................................................. 14
Army..................................................... 14
Interim cruise missile defense capability for the
Army............................................... 14
Army Tactical Missile System......................... 14
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle........................ 14
Stryker modification................................. 15
Stryker upgrade...................................... 15
Bradley Program (Modifications)...................... 15
Paladin Integrated Management........................ 15
Small caliber reduction.............................. 15
Army ammunition reduction............................ 15
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle......................... 16
U.S. Southern Command unfunded priorities increase... 16
Army automated data processing equipment............. 16
Navy..................................................... 17
F-35C Joint Strike Fighter........................... 17
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye................................ 17
USMC OA-X light attack procurement................... 17
C-40 aircraft........................................ 18
USMC Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft
System procurement................................. 19
EA-18G cognitive electronic warfare.................. 19
Adaptive Radar Countermeasure........................ 20
F-35B modifications.................................. 20
F-35C modifications.................................. 20
F-35 spares and repair parts......................... 21
Sidewinder........................................... 21
Long range anti-ship missile......................... 22
Harpoon block II..................................... 22
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile............... 22
MK48 torpedoes....................................... 23
LCS module weapons................................... 23
Advanced low-cost munitions ordnance................. 23
Virginia-class submarine advance procurement......... 23
DDG-1000............................................. 24
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers....................... 24
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement.... 24
Littoral Combat Ship................................. 25
LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance
procurement........................................ 25
Outfitting........................................... 25
Service craft........................................ 26
Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs....... 27
Cable ship........................................... 27
Other navigation equipment........................... 27
DDG-1000 class support equipment..................... 27
Items less than $5 million........................... 28
LCS mine countermeasures mission modules............. 28
LCS anti-submarine warfare mission modules........... 28
LCS surface warfare mission modules.................. 28
Surface ship torpedo defense......................... 29
Cooperative Engagement Capability.................... 29
Minesweeping system replacement...................... 29
Shallow water mine countermeasures................... 29
Next Generation Surface Search Radar................. 30
Cryptologic communications equipment................. 30
Sonobuoys............................................ 30
Navy port waterborne security barriers............... 31
Amphibious Assault Vehicle Survivability Upgrade..... 31
Command post systems................................. 31
Training devices..................................... 32
Air Force................................................ 32
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter........................... 32
OA-X light attack aircraft........................... 32
KC-46A Pegasus....................................... 33
MQ-9................................................. 34
B-52................................................. 34
Long range anti-ship missile certification on the B-
52................................................. 34
A-10 replacement wing program........................ 34
F-35A modifications.................................. 35
C-130 propulsion upgrade............................. 35
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System........ 35
F-35A spares and repair parts........................ 36
Air Force long range anti-ship missile............... 36
Small Diameter Bomb II............................... 37
Cargo and utility vehicles........................... 37
Security and tactical vehicles....................... 38
Special purpose vehicles............................. 38
Fire fighting/crash rescue vehicles.................. 38
Materials handling vehicles.......................... 38
Runway snow removal and cleaning equipment........... 39
Air Force physical security system................... 39
Base maintenance and support equipment............... 39
Defense Wide............................................. 39
Joint Service Provider............................... 39
Items of Special Interest.................................... 39
Aircraft carrier acquisition............................. 39
Army M4 Carbine Forward Extended Rails................... 40
Avoiding future work stoppages on EC-130H Compass Call
Recapitalization....................................... 40
B-2 modernization programs............................... 41
B-52 re-engining......................................... 41
Briefing on tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition plans... 42
CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement............................ 42
Continued F-15 C/D fleet modernization................... 43
Explosive Ordnance Disposal technology development....... 43
F-35 modifications to Block 4 configuration.............. 43
Ford-class sustainment and product support............... 44
Guided missile frigate (FFG(X)).......................... 44
HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopter program................... 45
Immersive virtual shipboard environment training......... 45
Intermediary Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile.... 45
John Lewis-class fleet oiler multiyear procurement
strategy............................................... 46
Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and
small arms............................................. 46
Maneuver Short Range Air Defense to counter Unmanned
Aircraft Systems....................................... 47
Navy equipment for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker program.... 47
Navy small arms weapons training......................... 47
Preservation of F-117 aircraft with certified combat
sorties................................................ 48
Presidential protection.................................. 48
Report on Air Force plan for fighter aircraft............ 49
Report on Navy's current and future state of long range
strike capability...................................... 49
Rifle Marksmanship Training.............................. 49
San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport ship
multiyear procurement strategy......................... 50
Small Unit Support Vehicle report........................ 50
Stryker A1 Production.................................... 51
Swarm attack defense of Navy ships....................... 51
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 53
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 53
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 53
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 53
Codification and reauthorization of Defense Research and
Development Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 211)........ 53
Procedures for rapid reaction to emerging technology
(sec. 212)............................................. 53
Activities on identification and development of enhanced
personal protective equipment against blast injury
(sec. 213)............................................. 54
Human factors modeling and simulation activities (sec.
214)................................................... 54
Expansion of mission areas supported by mechanisms for
expedited access to technical talent and expertise at
academic institutions (sec. 215)....................... 55
Advanced manufacturing activities (sec. 216)............. 56
National security innovation activities (sec. 217)....... 56
Partnership intermediaries for promotion of defense
research and education (sec. 218)...................... 57
Limitation on use of funds for Surface Navy Laser Weapon
System (sec. 219)...................................... 57
Expansion of coordination requirement for support for
national security innovation and entrepreneurial
education (sec. 220)................................... 58
Limitation on funding for Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2
(sec. 221)............................................. 58
Defense quantum information science and technology
research and development program (sec. 222)............ 58
Joint directed energy test activities (sec. 223)......... 59
Requirement for establishment of arrangements for
expedited access to technical talent and expertise at
academic institutions to support Department of Defense
missions (sec. 224).................................... 60
Authority for Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to
conduct research relating to high powered microwave
capabilities (sec. 225)................................ 60
Joint artificial intelligence research, development, and
transition activities (sec. 226)....................... 60
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 60
Report on comparative capabilities of adversaries in key
technology areas (sec. 231)............................ 60
Report on active protection systems for armored combat
and tactical vehicles (sec. 232)....................... 61
Next Generation Combat Vehicle (sec. 233)................ 61
Report on the future of the defense research and
engineering enterprise (sec. 234)...................... 62
Modification of reports on mechanisms to provide funds to
defense laboratories for research and development of
technologies for military missions (sec. 235).......... 63
Report on Mobile Protected Firepower and Future Vertical
Lift (sec. 236)........................................ 63
Improvement of the Air Force supply chain (sec. 237)..... 63
Review of guidance on blast exposure during training
(sec. 238)............................................. 64
List of technologies and manufacturing capabilities
critical to Armed Forces (sec. 239).................... 64
Report on requiring access to digital technical data in
future acquisitions of combat, combat service, and
combat support systems (sec. 240)...................... 65
Competitive acquisition strategy for Bradley Fighting
Vehicle transmission replacement (sec. 241)............ 65
Independent assessment of electronic warfare plans and
programs (sec. 242).................................... 65
Budget Items................................................. 66
Army..................................................... 66
Army defense research sciences....................... 66
Army quantum information sciences.................... 66
University and industry research centers............. 66
Sensors and electronic survivability................. 67
Aviation technology.................................. 67
Weapons and munitions technology..................... 67
Human factors engineering technology................. 68
Command, Control, and Communications technology...... 68
Aviation advanced technology......................... 69
Extended Range Cannon Artillery gun.................. 69
Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology.... 69
Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle Prototype........ 69
High performance computing modernization program..... 70
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds for
minor Science and Technology military construction. 70
Military engineering advanced technology............. 71
Position, navigation and timing technology........... 71
Command, Control, and Communication advanced
technology......................................... 71
Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional Munition........ 72
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Radio
Frequency Exploitation--Electronic Intelligence.... 72
Indirect Fire Protection Capability.................. 73
Mobile Protected Firepower........................... 73
Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems--EMD (Vehicle
Protection Suite Project).......................... 73
Army contract writing system......................... 74
Major T&E investment................................. 74
High energy laser testing............................ 74
Navy..................................................... 75
Navy basic research initiatives...................... 75
Navy defense research sciences....................... 75
Navy quantum information sciences.................... 75
Directed energy applied research..................... 75
Warfighter sustainment applied research.............. 76
Undersea warfare applied research.................... 76
Innovative Naval prototypes--applied research........ 76
USMC advanced technology demonstration............... 76
Innovative Naval prototypes--advanced technology
development........................................ 77
Advanced combat systems technology................... 77
Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures....... 77
Advanced submarine system development................ 78
Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform
acceleration....................................... 78
Littoral Combat Ship mission modules................. 78
Land attack technology............................... 79
F/A-18 infrared search and track..................... 79
Small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles.......... 79
Large unmanned undersea vehicles..................... 80
Littoral airborne mine countermeasures............... 80
Surface mine countermeasures......................... 80
AV-8B Aircraft--Engineering Development.............. 80
Physiological episode safety improvements............ 81
EA-18G cognitive electronic warfare.................. 81
EA-18G offensive airborne electronic attack special
mission pod........................................ 82
LPD-17 class systems integration..................... 82
SM-6 Block 1B 21 inch rocket motor................... 82
Amphibious assault ship acceleration................. 82
Electronic Procurement System........................ 83
Navy Information Technology Systems Development...... 83
Management, technical, and international support..... 83
Maritime Strike Tomahawk............................. 84
Integrated surveillance system....................... 84
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile extended range 84
Tactical Targeting Network Technology................ 85
F/A-18 E/F engine enhancements....................... 85
Amphibious Assault Vehicle........................... 85
Air Force................................................ 86
Air Force defense research sciences.................. 86
Air Force quantum information sciences............... 86
High energy laser research initiatives............... 86
Materials............................................ 86
Aerospace vehicle technologies....................... 87
Affordable responsive modular rocket................. 87
Multi-mode propulsion applied research............... 87
Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand................. 88
Aerospace propulsion................................. 88
Aerospace sensors.................................... 88
Skywave Technologies Laboratory...................... 88
High energy laser research........................... 89
High powered microwave research...................... 89
Advanced materials for research...................... 89
Materials affordability.............................. 89
Sustainment in science and technology................ 90
Aerospace technology development and demonstration
increase for operational energy capability
improvements....................................... 90
Aerospace propulsion and power technology............ 90
Multi-mode propulsion advanced technology development 91
Technology for the sustainment of strategic systems.. 91
Electronic combat technology......................... 91
Demonstrator Laser Weapons System.................... 92
Prototype Tanker..................................... 92
Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon................ 92
Technology transition program........................ 93
Air Force supply chain innovation.................... 93
Contracting Information Technology System............ 93
Advanced Battle Management System.................... 94
JSTARS recap radar................................... 94
Major Test and Evaluation Management................. 94
Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System........ 94
B-52................................................. 95
Airborne Early Warning and Control System............ 95
Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul System............. 95
Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System
Increment 2........................................ 96
Defense Wide............................................. 96
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency defense
research sciences.................................. 96
Critical materials................................... 96
Defense-wide quantum information sciences............ 97
Basic research initiatives........................... 97
Activities to determine more effective personal
protective equipment against blast injury.......... 97
Joint munitions program.............................. 97
Applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities.............................. 98
Tactical technology.................................. 98
Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement
System............................................. 98
Materials and biological technology.................. 99
Combating terrorism technology support............... 99
Advanced aerospace systems........................... 99
Blackjack............................................ 100
Defense Innovation Unit Experimental................. 100
Networked communications capabilities................ 100
Enhancing cybersecurity for small vendors............ 100
Defense-wide manufacturing science and technology
program............................................ 101
Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology
program............................................ 101
Defense Logistics Agency generic logistics research
and development technology demonstrations.......... 101
Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program and Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program increases.................... 102
Microelectronics technology development and support.. 103
Advanced electronics technologies.................... 103
Network-centric warfare technology................... 103
Sensor technology.................................... 103
Quick reaction special projects...................... 104
Test and evaluation science and technology related to
hypersonics and directed energy.................... 104
Test and evaluation science and technology workforce
development........................................ 104
Operational energy capability improvement............ 104
National Security Innovation Activities.............. 105
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase.... 105
Trusted and assured microelectronics................. 105
Defense Contract Management Agency information
technology development............................. 106
Deputy Chief Management Officer policy and
integration........................................ 106
Defense-wide electronic procurement capabilities..... 106
Trusted and assured microelectronics engineering and
manufacturing development.......................... 107
Hypersonic experimentation facilities................ 107
Joint mission environment test capability............ 107
Technical studies, support and analysis.............. 108
Developmental Test and Evaluation.................... 108
Policy research and development programs............. 108
Personnel security and continuous evaluation
innovation......................................... 108
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation cyber
projects........................................... 109
Items of Special Interest.................................... 109
AC-130J High Energy Laser................................ 109
Acoustic Threat Detection................................ 109
Active Protection System for Abrams, Bradley, Stryker.... 110
Additive manufacturing within the military departments... 110
Advanced countermeasure dispenser system for 4th
generation/legacy aircraft............................. 111
Advanced hull technology................................. 111
Advanced low-weight body armor report.................... 111
Aerospace sensors........................................ 111
Airless Tire Technology Demonstration.................... 112
Army Assured Mobility in Northern Regions................ 112
Combat Vehicle Light Weight Development Program.......... 112
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense
industry Independent Research and Development funding.. 113
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Gremlins Air-
Recoverable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System............. 114
Department of Defense Laboratory talent management and
succession planning.................................... 114
Diamond transistor technology for power conversion in
combat infrastructure.................................. 114
Fielding of radiation detection devices.................. 114
Hyper Velocity Projectile................................ 115
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 115
Land-Bases Anti-Ship Missile............................. 116
Military applications for Graphene....................... 116
Modernizing Towed 105 Artillery Systems.................. 116
Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS)......... 117
Policy issues surrounding emerging technologies for
combat and non-combat use.............................. 117
Rapid-charging hybrid energy storage fuel cells.......... 118
Report on Metal Matrix Composites for Army Vehicles...... 118
Research, development, and procurement of wearable and
mobile remote power capabilities....................... 118
Soldier Born Sensor (SBS) Program........................ 118
Surrogates for operational testing of torpedoes and
torpedo defensive systems.............................. 119
Technology and transition accelerators................... 119
Trusted and assured microelectronics..................... 119
Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar......................... 120
Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net System.................. 120
Workforce and infrastructure for National Defense
Strategy priority technologies......................... 120
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 123
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 123
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)............... 123
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 123
Further improvements to energy security and resilience
(sec. 311)............................................. 123
Funding of study and assessment of health implications of
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in
drinking water by Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (sec. 312)............................ 123
Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse (sec.
313)................................................... 123
Operational energy policy (sec. 314)..................... 123
Funding treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
perfluorooctanoic acid at State-owned and operated
National Guard installations (sec. 315)................ 124
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 124
Reports on readiness (sec. 321).......................... 124
Report on cold weather capabilities and readiness of
United States Armed Forces (sec. 322).................. 124
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 124
Pilot programs on integration of military information
support and civil affairs activities (sec. 331)........ 124
Reporting on future years budgeting by subactivity group
(sec. 332)............................................. 125
Restriction on upgrades to aviation demonstration team
aircraft (sec. 333).................................... 125
U.S. Special Operations Command civilian personnel (sec.
334)................................................... 125
Limitation on availability of funds for service-specific
Defense Readiness Reporting Systems (sec. 335)......... 126
Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) 126
Limitation on availability of funds for establishment of
additional specialized undergraduate pilot training
facility (sec. 337).................................... 126
Scope of authority for restoration of land due to mishap
(sec. 338)............................................. 127
Redesignation of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR)
(sec. 339)............................................. 127
Subtitle E--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 127
Limitation on modifications to Navy Facilities
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM)
structure and mechanism (sec. 351)..................... 127
Budget Items................................................. 127
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
increase............................................... 127
Army marketing and advertising reduction................. 127
Army Operation and Maintenance budget request for
civilian pay........................................... 128
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
increase for sensor integration........................ 128
Enterprise information reduction......................... 128
Navy facilities, sustainment, restoration, and
modernization increase................................. 128
F-35 depot component repair capability................... 129
Air Force demolition increases........................... 129
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System weapons
system sustainment..................................... 129
Air Force weapon system sustainment increases............ 130
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System flight
hours.................................................. 130
Deployable airbase systems............................... 130
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System personnel.. 131
Air National Guard increase per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substance environmental restoration funding transfer... 131
Plan for incorporating logistics sustainment under attack
into war games......................................... 132
Defense Security Service................................. 132
Personnel security background investigations............. 133
Funding for impact aid................................... 133
Center for Disease Control study increase................ 133
Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse increase...... 134
Defense Environmental International Cooperation program
increase............................................... 134
Department of Defense emerging contaminants increase..... 134
Department of Defense environmental resiliency increase.. 135
Department of Defense rewards program reduction.......... 135
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative........ 135
Air Force decrease per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance
environmental restoration funding transfer............. 136
Foreign currency fluctuations............................ 136
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps increase......... 136
Air Force Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup.... 136
Air National Guard Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances
cleanup................................................ 137
Army Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup......... 137
Navy Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup......... 137
Items of Special Interest.................................... 137
Air Force runway infrastructure.......................... 137
All services marketing audit............................. 138
Ammunition plant reform and stockpile of explosives...... 138
Arctic search and rescue................................. 139
Assessment of assigning a Security Force Assistance
Brigade to U.S. Africa Command......................... 140
Assessment of Department of Defense installation
management............................................. 140
Assessment of hybrid electric drive performance.......... 142
Battery storage and safety programs clarification........ 142
Battery storage technology............................... 143
Briefing on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry PFAS report................................... 143
Building energy resilience on military installations..... 143
Comptroller General review of Defense-wide Working
Capital Fund overhead charges and fees................. 144
Congressional notification of incidents.................. 144
Corrosion prevention and oversight....................... 145
Cost benefit analysis of alternative-fueled vehicles and
infrastructure......................................... 146
Cost benefit analysis on conducting organic depot level
maintenance on the joint surveillance target attack
radar system........................................... 146
Depot best practices..................................... 147
Development of future fluorine-free fire fighting foams.. 148
Employment of Special Operations Forces.................. 149
Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training
program................................................ 149
Establishment of the energy resilience project
development and implementation office.................. 150
Establishment of the occupational group for federal
energy managers........................................ 151
Guidance on utility privatization contracts.............. 151
High purity aluminum..................................... 151
High-energy intensity report............................. 152
High-pressure cold spray repair.......................... 152
Leveraging non-Department funds to address infrastructure
maintenance backlogs and project delays................ 152
Light emitting diodes for aviation applications.......... 153
M240 medium machine gun modernization.................... 153
Maintaining current balance of government and private
contractors under 10 U.S.C. 2466....................... 154
Marine Corps Base of the Future.......................... 155
Marine Corps Policy on flame-resistant uniforms.......... 155
Military working dogs.................................... 156
Navy next generation small arms weapons training and
readiness requirements................................. 156
Operational energy technologies.......................... 157
Paint training programs.................................. 157
Predicting soil-terrain-atmospheric conditions........... 158
Privatization of stormwater conveyance systems........... 158
Report on transportation infrastructure critical to
Eastern Range space operations......................... 158
Report on universal camouflage inventory and use......... 159
Review of Department of Defense mission assurance program 160
Review of the Navy's shipyard improvement plan........... 161
Rough terrain container handler.......................... 162
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command common and
logistics broker waiver process........................ 163
Use of fire extinguishers in Department of Defense
facilities and National Model Codes.................... 163
Use of Global Combat Support System-Army by deployed
units.................................................. 163
Water resources for Department of Defense installations.. 164
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 165
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 165
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 165
End strengths for commissioned officers on active duty in
certain grades (sec. 402).............................. 166
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 166
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 166
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 166
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 167
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 414)......... 167
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 167
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 167
Limitation on use of funds for personnel in fiscal year
2019 in excess of statutorily specified end strengths
for fiscal year 2018 (sec. 422)........................ 168
Budget Items................................................. 168
Military personnel funding changes....................... 168
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 169
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 169
Part I--Officer Personnel Management Reform.............. 169
Modernizing officer personnel management in support
of the National Defense Strategy................... 169
Repeal of codified specification of authorized
strengths of certain commissioned officers on
active duty (sec. 501)............................. 172
Annual defense manpower requirements report matters
(sec. 502)......................................... 172
Repeal of requirement for ability to complete 20
years of service by age 62 as qualification for
original appointment as a regular commissioned
officer (sec. 503)................................. 173
Enhancement of availability of constructive service
credit for private sector training or experience
upon original appointment as a commissioned officer
(sec. 504)......................................... 173
Standardized temporary promotion authority across the
military departments for officers in certain grades
with critical skills (sec. 505).................... 174
Authority for promotion boards to recommend officers
of particular merit be placed higher on a promotion
list (sec. 506).................................... 175
Authority for officers to opt out of promotion board
consideration (sec. 507)........................... 176
Competitive category matters (sec. 508).............. 176
Promotion zone matters (sec. 509).................... 176
Alternative promotion authority for officers in
designated competitive categories of officers (sec.
510)............................................... 177
Applicability to additional officer grades of
authority for continuation on active duty of
officers in certain military specialties and career
tracks (sec. 511).................................. 179
Part II--Other Matters................................... 179
Matters relating to satisfactory service in grade for
purposes of retirement grade of officers in highest
grade of satisfactory service (sec. 516)........... 179
Reduction in number of years of active naval service
required for permanent appointment as a limited
duty officer (sec. 517)............................ 180
Repeal of original appointment qualification
requirement for warrant officers in the regular
Army (sec. 518).................................... 180
Uniform grade of service of the Chiefs of Chaplains
of the Armed Forces (sec. 519)..................... 180
Written justification for appointment of Chiefs of
Chaplains in grade below grade of major general or
rear admiral (sec. 520)............................ 180
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 180
Authority to adjust effective date of promotion in the
event of undue delay in extending Federal recognition
of promotion (sec. 521)................................ 180
Authority to designate certain reserve officers as not to
be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522)... 180
Expansion of personnel subject to authority of the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau in the execution of
functions and missions of the National Guard Bureau
(sec. 523)............................................. 181
Repeal of prohibition on service on Army Reserve Forces
Policy Committee by members on active duty (sec. 524).. 181
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 181
Assessment of Navy standard workweek and related
adjustments (sec. 531)................................. 181
Manning of Forward Deployed Naval Forces (sec. 532)...... 182
Navy watchstander records (sec. 533)..................... 182
Qualification experience requirements for certain Navy
watchstations (sec. 534)............................... 182
Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or
requests for review of discharge or dismissal from the
Armed Forces (sec. 535)................................ 182
Treatment of claims relating to military sexual trauma in
correction of military records and review of discharge
or dismissal proceedings (sec. 536).................... 182
Subtitle D--Military Justice Matters......................... 183
Punitive article on domestic violence under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (sec. 541).................... 183
Inclusion of strangulation and suffocation in conduct
constituting aggravated assault for purposes of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 542)............ 183
Authorities of Defense Advisory Committee on
Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual
Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 543)................. 183
Protective orders against individuals subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 544)............ 183
Expansion of eligibility for Special Victims' Counsel
services (sec. 545).................................... 183
Clarification of expiration of term of appellate military
judges of the United States Court of Military
Commission Review (sec. 546)........................... 183
Expansion of policies on expedited transfer of members of
the Armed Forces who are victims of sexual assault
(sec. 547)............................................. 184
Uniform command action form on disposition of
unrestricted sexual assault cases involving members of
the Armed Forces (sec. 548)............................ 184
Inclusion of information on certain collateral conduct of
victims of sexual assault in annual reports on sexual
assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec.
549)................................................... 184
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, Transition, and
Resilience................................................. 184
Consecutive service of service obligation in connection
with payment of tuition for off-duty training or
education for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces
with any other service obligations (sec. 551).......... 184
Consecutive service of active service obligations for
medical training with other service obligations for
education or training (sec. 552)....................... 184
Clarification of application and honorable service
requirements under the Troops-to-Teachers Program to
members of the Retired Reserve (sec. 553).............. 185
Prohibition on use of funds for attendance of enlisted
personnel at senior level and intermediate level
officer professional military education courses (sec.
554)................................................... 185
Repeal of program on encouragement of postseparation
public and community service (sec. 555)................ 185
Expansion of authority to assist members in obtaining
professional credentials (sec. 556).................... 185
Enhancement of authorities in connection with Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs (sec. 557)... 185
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 186
Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............ 186
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 561)............................... 186
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities
(sec. 562)......................................... 186
Department of Defense Education Activity policies and
procedures on sexual harassment of students of
Activity schools (sec. 563)........................ 186
Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters............... 187
Improvement of authority to conduct family support
programs for immediate family members of the Armed
Forces assigned to special operations forces (sec.
566)............................................... 187
Expansion of period of availability of Military
OneSource program for retired and discharged
members of the Armed Forces and their immediate
families (sec. 567)................................ 187
Expansion of authority for noncompetitive
appointments of military spouses by Federal
agencies (sec. 568)................................ 187
Improvement of My Career Advancement Account program
for military spouses (sec. 569).................... 187
Access to military installations for certain
surviving spouses and other next of kin of members
of the Armed Forces who die while on active duty or
certain reserve duty (sec. 570).................... 188
Department of Defense Military Family Readiness
Council matters (sec. 571)......................... 188
Multidisciplinary teams for military installations on
child abuse and other domestic violence (sec. 572). 188
Provisional or interim clearances to provide
childcare services at military childcare centers
(sec. 573)......................................... 189
Pilot program on prevention of child abuse and
training on safe childcare practices among military
families (sec. 574)................................ 189
Pilot program on participation of military spouses in
Transition Assistance Program activities (sec. 575) 190
Small business activities of military spouses on
military installations in the United States (sec.
576)............................................... 190
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 190
Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service
Cross for Justin T. Gallegos for acts of valor during
Operation Enduring Freedom (sec. 581).................. 190
Award of medals or other commendations to handlers of
military working dogs (sec. 582)....................... 190
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 190
Authority to award damaged personal protective equipment
to members separating from the Armed Forces and
veterans as mementos of military service (sec. 591).... 190
Standardization of frequency of academy visits of the Air
Force Academy Board of Visitors with academy visits of
boards of other military service academies (sec. 592).. 191
Redesignation of the Commandant of the United States Air
Force Institute of Technology as President of the
United States Air Force Institute of Technology (sec.
593)................................................... 191
Limitation on justifications entered by military
recruiters for enlistment or accession of individuals
into the Armed Forces (sec. 594)....................... 191
National Commission on Military, National, and Public
Service matters (sec. 595)............................. 191
Burial of unclaimed remains of inmates at the United
States Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas (sec. 596)......................... 191
Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft
for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated
as total (sec. 597).................................... 192
Items of Special Interest.................................... 192
Administrative separation protections for members of the
Armed Forces........................................... 192
Assessment of Department of Defense Education Activity's
policies and procedures on student misconduct.......... 192
Assessment of relocation of family members............... 193
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense
original appointment and scrolling processes........... 193
Comptroller General study of dependency determinations
for incapacitated adult children of military members... 194
Dependent care flexible savings accounts................. 194
Facilitation of separation process and State veterans
affairs offices........................................ 195
Improvements to licensure and credentialing for military
spouses................................................ 195
Inclusion of the study of hybrid warfare in professional
military education..................................... 197
Military childcare subsidies............................. 197
National Guard Federal promotion delays.................. 197
National Guard mental health pilot program............... 198
Permanent change of station frequency and impact on
military families...................................... 198
Public-private partnerships on military installations.... 199
Reimbursement for certain costs incurred by states during
domestic emergencies................................... 199
Responding to cases of traumatic brain injury sustained
in intimate partner violence event..................... 200
Senior Military Acquisition Advisor eligibility.......... 200
Specialized workshops for transitioning servicemembers... 201
Training requirement for background check submissions.... 202
Understanding military family experiences of intimate
partner violence and child abuse and neglect........... 202
Use of data analytics to facilitate assignment matching
and military family stability.......................... 203
Use of reserve personnel for the Cyber Mission Force..... 203
Warm handoff for transitioning servicemembers suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury................................................. 203
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 205
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 205
Fiscal year 2019 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 205
Repeal of authority for payment of personal money
allowances to Navy officers serving in certain
positions (sec. 602)................................... 205
Department of Defense proposal for a pay table for
members of the Armed Forces using steps in grade based
on time in grade rather than time in service (sec. 603) 205
Financial support for lessors under the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative during 2019 (sec. 604)........ 205
Modification of authority of President to determine
alternative pay adjustment in annual basic pay of
members of the uniformed services (sec. 605)........... 206
Eligibility of reserve component members for high-
deployment allowance for lengthy or numerous
deployments and frequent mobilizations (sec. 606)...... 206
Eligibility of reserve component members for nonreduction
in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard (sec. 607).............................. 207
Temporary adjustment in rate of basic allowance for
housing following identification of significant
underdetermination of civilian housing costs for
housing areas (sec. 608)............................... 207
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 207
One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special
pay authorities (sec. 611)............................. 207
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 208
Technical corrections in calculation and publication of
special survivor indemnity allowance cost of living
adjustments (sec. 621)................................. 208
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 208
Rates of per diem for long-term temporary duty
assignments (sec. 631)................................. 208
Prohibition on per diem allowance reductions based on the
duration of temporary duty assignment or civilian
travel (sec. 632)...................................... 208
Items of Special Interest.................................... 208
Defense Commissary Agency and small businesses........... 208
Privatized on-base lodging program....................... 208
Small business access to military exchange stores........ 209
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 211
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits........... 211
Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE
Select and TRICARE Prime (sec. 701).................... 211
Administration of TRICARE dental plans through the
Federal Employees Dental Insurance Program (sec. 702).. 211
Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE Program
(sec. 703)............................................. 212
Pilot program on opioid management in the military health
system (sec. 704)...................................... 212
Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces
for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military
sexual trauma (sec. 705)............................... 212
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 213
Improvement of administration of Defense Health Agency
and military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711)... 213
Organizational framework of the military healthcare
system to support medical requirements of the combatant
commands (sec. 712).................................... 214
Streamlining of TRICARE Prime beneficiary referral
process (sec. 713)..................................... 215
Sharing of information with State prescription drug
monitoring programs (sec. 714)......................... 215
Improvement of reimbursement by Department of Defense of
entities carrying out state vaccination programs in
connection with vaccines provided to covered
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program (sec. 715)..... 216
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 216
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund (sec. 721).......................... 216
Increase in number of appointed members of the Henry M.
Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military
Medicine (sec. 722).................................... 216
Cessation of requirement for mental health assessment of
members after redeployment from a contingency operation
upon discharge or release from the Armed Forces (sec.
723)................................................... 217
Pilot program on earning by special operations forces
medics of credits towards a physician assistant degree
(sec. 724)............................................. 217
Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations
for specialized medical training (sec. 725)............ 217
Registry of individuals exposed to per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances on military installations
(sec. 726)............................................. 218
Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments for
members of the Armed Forces and related research
efforts (sec. 727)..................................... 218
Comptroller General review of Defense Health Agency
oversight of TRICARE managed care support contractors
(sec. 728)............................................. 218
Items of Special Interest.................................... 219
Critical gaps in military physician specialties.......... 219
Emerging technologies to mitigate and prevent traumatic brain
injury..................................................... 220
Expedited development and approval of medical products
for emergency use on the battlefield................... 220
Explore feasibility of implementing a combat readiness
assessment tool........................................ 220
Extended Care Health Option respite care services........ 221
Health risk surveillance of servicemembers in the United
States Special Operations Command...................... 221
MHS GENESIS.................................................. 221
Mild traumatic brain injury screening tests.............. 222
Procurement of telehealth solutions and services......... 222
Prostate cancer incidence among Active-Duty
servicemembers......................................... 222
Rapid cerebral therapeutic hypothermia................... 223
Regenerative medicine research and development........... 223
Tricare access study..................................... 223
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 225
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 225
Permanent Supply Chain Risk Management Authority (sec.
801)................................................... 225
Commercially available market research (sec. 802)........ 225
Comptroller General assessment on acquisition programs
and related initiatives (sec. 803)..................... 225
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 226
Department of Defense contracting dispute matters (sec.
811)................................................... 226
Continuation of technical data rights during challenges
(sec. 812)............................................. 227
Increased micro-purchase threshold (sec. 813)............ 227
Modification of limitations on single source task or
delivery order contracts (sec. 814).................... 227
Preliminary cost analysis requirement for exercise of
multiyear contract authority (sec. 815)................ 227
Inclusion of best available information regarding past
performance of subcontractors and joint venture
partners (sec. 816).................................... 227
Modification of criteria for waivers of requirement for
certified cost and price data (sec. 817)............... 228
Subcontracting price and approved purchasing systems
(sec. 818)............................................. 228
Comptroller General of the United States report on
progress payment financing of Department of Defense
contracts (sec. 819)................................... 228
Authorization to limit foreign access to technology
through contracts (sec. 820)........................... 228
Briefing requirement on services contracts (sec. 821).... 228
Sense of Congress on awarding of contracts to responsible
companies that primarily employ American workers and do
not actively transfer American jobs to potential
adversaries (sec. 822)................................. 229
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 229
Program cost, fielding, and performance goals in planning
major acquisition programs (sec. 831).................. 229
Implementation of recommendations of the Independent
Study on Consideration of Sustainment in Weapons
Systems Life Cycle (sec. 832).......................... 229
Pilot program to accelerate major weapons system programs
(sec. 833)............................................. 229
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce..... 230
Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating
to acquisition personnel management policies and
procedures (sec. 841).................................. 230
Establishment of integrated review team on defense
acquisition industry-government exchange (sec. 842).... 230
Exchange program for acquisition workforce employees
(sec. 843)............................................. 230
Subtitle E--Provisions Relating to Commercial Items.......... 231
Report on commercial item procurement reform (sec. 851).. 231
Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters.......................... 231
National technology and industrial base application
process (sec. 861)..................................... 231
Report on defense electronics industrial base (sec. 862). 231
Support for defense manufacturing communities to support
the defense industrial base (sec. 863)................. 232
Subtitle G--Other Transactions............................... 232
Change to notification requirement for other transactions
(sec. 871)............................................. 232
Data and policy on the use of other transactions (sec.
872)................................................... 232
Subtitle H--Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive
and Digital Products and Services.......................... 232
Clarifications regarding proprietary and technical data
(sec. 881)............................................. 232
Implementation of recommendations of the final report of
the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Design and
Acquisition of Software for Defense Systems (sec. 882). 233
Implementation of pilot program to use agile or iterative
development methods under section 873 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (sec.
883)................................................... 233
Enabling and other activities of the Cloud Executive
Steering Group (sec. 884).............................. 234
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 235
Prohibition on certain telecommunications services or
equipment (sec. 891)................................... 235
Limitation on use of funds pending submittal of report on
Army Marketing and Advertising Program (sec. 892)...... 235
Permanent SBIR and STTR authority for the Department of
Defense (sec. 893)..................................... 235
Procurement of telecommunications supplies for
experimental purposes (sec. 894)....................... 235
Access by developmental and operational testing
activities to data regarding modeling and simulation
activity (sec. 895).................................... 235
Items of Special Interest.................................... 236
Analysis of technical and security issues in Department
of Defense business systems............................ 236
Assessment of Superior Supplier Incentive Programs....... 236
Incorporation of agile methods for testing in prototyping
and streamlined fielding initiatives................... 236
Master plan for organic industrial base infrastructure... 237
Serviceability and control of technical data............. 238
Use of Federal Aviation Administration approval for
Department of Defense commercial derivative aircraft... 239
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 241
Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related
Matters.................................................... 241
Powers and duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering in connection with priority
emerging technologies (sec. 901)....................... 241
Redesignation and modification of responsibilities of
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(sec. 902)............................................. 241
Modification of responsibilities of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy (sec. 903)....................... 243
Report on allocation of former responsibilities of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (sec. 904)............................... 243
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans,
Assessments, Readiness, and Capabilities (sec. 905).... 243
Clarification of responsibilities and duties of the Chief
Information Officer of the Department of Defense (sec.
906)................................................... 245
Specification of certain duties of the Defense Technical
Information Center (sec. 907).......................... 246
Limitation on termination of, and transfer of functions,
responsibilities, and activities of, the Strategic
Capabilities Office (sec. 908)......................... 246
Technical corrections to Department of Defense Test
Resource Management Center authority (sec. 909)........ 246
Subtitle B--Organization and Management of Other Department
of Defense Offices and Elements............................ 247
Modification of certain responsibilities of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to joint force
concept development (sec. 921)......................... 247
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low-Intensity Conflict review of United States Special
Operations Command (sec. 922).......................... 247
Qualifications for appointment as Deputy Chief Management
Officer of a military department (sec. 923)............ 248
Expansion of principal duties of Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
(sec. 924)............................................. 248
Cross-functional teams in the Department of Defense (sec.
925)................................................... 248
Deadline for completion of full implementation of
requirements in connection with organization of the
Department of Defense for management of special
operations forces and special operations (sec. 926).... 251
Subtitle C--Organization and Management of the Department of
Defense Generally.......................................... 253
Limitation on availability of funds for major
headquarters activities of the Department of Defense
(sec. 931)............................................. 253
Responsibility for policy on civilian casualty matters
(sec. 932)............................................. 253
Additional matters in connection with background and
security investigations for Department of Defense
personnel (sec. 933)................................... 253
Program of expedited security clearances for mission-
critical positions (sec. 934).......................... 254
Information sharing program for positions of trust (sec.
935)................................................... 254
Report on clearance in person concept (sec. 936)......... 254
Strategic Defense Fellows Program (sec. 937)............. 254
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 255
Analysis of Department of Defense business management and
operations datasets to promote savings and efficiencies
(sec. 941)............................................. 255
Research and development to advance capabilities of the
Department of Defense in data integration and advanced
analytics in connection with personnel security (sec.
942)................................................... 255
Items of Special Interest.................................... 256
Department of Defense personnel security resourcing plans
and needs.............................................. 256
Department of Defense security clearance responsibilities 256
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic..... 257
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 259
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 259
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 259
Inclusion of funds for Air Force pass-through items in
Defense-wide budget for the Department of Defense (sec.
1002).................................................. 259
Report on shift in requests for funds for Department of
Defense activities from funds for overseas contingency
operations to funds through the base budget (sec. 1003) 259
Ranking of auditability of financial statements of the
organizations and elements of the Department of Defense
(sec. 1004)............................................ 260
Transparency of accounting firms used to support
Department of Defense audit (sec. 1005)................ 260
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 260
Date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the
Naval Vessel Register and other fleet inventory
measures (sec. 1011)................................... 260
Annual reports on examination of Navy vessels (sec. 1012) 260
Limitation on duration of homeporting of certain vessels
in foreign locations (sec. 1013)....................... 261
Specific authorization requirement for nuclear refueling
of aircraft carriers (sec. 1014)....................... 261
Dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers (sec. 1015)................................... 261
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016)................ 262
Limitation on use of funds for retirement of hospital
ships (sec. 1017)...................................... 262
Subtitle C--Counterterrorism................................. 263
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)............................................ 263
Extension of 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)....................... 263
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain countries
(sec. 1023)............................................ 263
Extension of prohibition on use of funds to close or
relinquish control of United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1024)....................... 263
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. 1025).......................... 264
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 264
Strategic guidance documents within the Department of
Defense (sec. 1031).................................... 264
Guidance on the electronic warfare mission area and joint
electromagnetic spectrum operations (sec. 1032)........ 265
Limitation on use of funds for United States Special
Operations Command Global Messaging and Counter-
Messaging platform (sec. 1033)......................... 266
Sense of Congress on the basing of KC-46A aircraft
outside the continental United States (sec. 1034)...... 267
Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction of criminal
offenses committed by juveniles on military
installations (sec. 1035).............................. 267
Policy on response to juvenile-on-juvenile abuse
committed on military installations (sec. 1036)........ 267
Subtitle E--Studies and Reports.............................. 267
Report on highest-priority roles and missions of the
Department of Defense and the Armed Forces (sec. 1041). 267
Annual reports by the Armed Forces on Out-Year
Unconstrained Total Munitions Requirements and Out-Year
inventory numbers (sec. 1042).......................... 268
Comprehensive review of operational and administrative
chains-of-command and functions of the Department of
the Navy (sec. 1043)................................... 268
Military aviation readiness review in support of the
National Defense Strategy (sec. 1044).................. 268
Report on capabilities and capacities of Armored Brigade
Combat Teams (sec. 1045)............................... 269
Improvement of annual report on civilian casualties in
connection with United States military operations (sec.
1046).................................................. 269
Report on Department of Defense participation in Export
Administration Regulations license application review
process (sec. 1047).................................... 269
Automatic sunset for future statutory reporting
requirements (sec. 1048)............................... 270
Repeal of certain Department of Defense reporting
requirements that otherwise terminate as of December
31, 2021 (sec. 1049)................................... 270
Report on potential improvements to certain military
educational institutions of the Department of Defense
(sec. 1050)............................................ 270
Recruiting costs of the Armed Forces (sec. 1051)......... 270
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 270
Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup
(sec. 1061)............................................ 270
Improvement of database on emergency response
capabilities (sec. 1062)............................... 271
Acceptance and distribution by Department of Defense of
assistance from certain nonprofit entities in support
of missions of deployed United States personnel around
the world (sec. 1063).................................. 271
United States policy with respect to freedom of
navigation and overflight (sec. 1064).................. 271
Prohibition of funds for Chinese language instruction
provided by a Confucius Institute (sec. 1065).......... 272
Items of Special Interest.................................... 272
Audit materiality standards relating to valuation........ 272
Business case analysis for the 168th Air Refueling Wing.. 272
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response
Enterprise............................................. 273
Comptroller General report on monitoring ongoing
challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community...... 274
Comptroller General review of Federally Funded Research
and Development Centers................................ 274
Department of Defense information operations............. 275
Marine Mammal Program and Support to Civil Authorities... 276
Navy mine countermeasures aboard vessels of opportunity.. 276
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life assessment.... 277
Overclassification of Department of Defense information.. 277
Policy of the Department of Defense on contract terms to
support achievement of full financial audits........... 278
Report on training and readiness of Navy surface ships... 278
Review of Surface Warfare Officer initial training....... 278
Strategic dispersal of capital ships..................... 279
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 281
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters.................... 281
Inapplicability of certification of executive
qualifications by qualification review boards of Office
of Personnel Management for initial appointments to
Senior Executive Service positions in Department of
Defense (sec. 1101).................................... 281
Direct hire authority for science and technology
reinvention laboratories and Major Range and Test
Facilities Base facilities for recent science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates of
minority-serving institutions (sec. 1102).............. 281
Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental of the Department of
Defense in personnel management authority to attract
experts in science and engineering (sec. 1103)......... 281
Enhancement of flexible management authorities for
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1104)...................... 281
Inclusion of Office of Secretary of Defense among
components of the Department of Defense covered by
direct hire authority for financial management experts
(sec. 1105)............................................ 282
Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Joint
Special Operations University (sec. 1106).............. 282
Subtitle B--Government-Wide Matters.......................... 282
Alcohol testing of civil service mariners of the Military
Sealift Command assigned to vessels (sec. 1121)........ 282
Expedited hiring authority for college graduates and post
secondary students (sec. 1122)......................... 282
Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation
incentive pay authorized for civilian employees (sec.
1123).................................................. 282
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1124) 283
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1125)............................................ 283
Items of Special Interest.................................... 283
Competitive salary and benefits for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics professionals............. 283
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 285
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 285
Clarification of authority for use of advisors and
trainers for training of personnel of foreign
ministries with security missions under defense
institution capacity building authorities (sec. 1201).. 285
Modification to Department of Defense State Partnership
Program (sec. 1202).................................... 285
Expansion of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism
Fellowship Program to include irregular warfare (sec.
1203).................................................. 285
Extension and modification of authority to support border
security operations of certain foreign countries (sec.
1204).................................................. 286
Legal and policy review of advise, assist, and accompany
missions (sec. 1205)................................... 286
Technical corrections relating to defense security
cooperation statutory reorganization (sec. 1206)....... 286
Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training
School (sec. 1207)..................................... 286
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 287
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1211)............. 287
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1212).......... 288
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1213)...................... 288
Modification of reporting requirements for special
immigrant visas for Afghan allies program (sec. 1214).. 289
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, And Iran........ 289
Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1221)........ 289
Extension and modification of authority to provide
assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition (sec. 1222). 290
Extension and modification of authority to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223)........................ 291
Syria Study Group (sec. 1224)............................ 292
Modification of annual report on military power of Iran
(sec. 1225)............................................ 292
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian
Federation................................................. 292
Extension of limitation on military cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation (sec.
1231).................................................. 292
Limitation on availability of funds relating to
sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec.
1232).................................................. 292
Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec.
1233).................................................. 293
Sense of Senate on relocation of Joint Intelligence
Analysis Complex (sec. 1234)........................... 294
Sense of Senate on enhancing deterrence against Russian
aggression in Europe (sec. 1235)....................... 294
Technical amendments related to NATO Support and
Procurement Organization and related NATO agreements
(sec. 1236)............................................ 295
Report on security cooperation between the Russian
Federation and Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (sec.
1237).................................................. 295
Sense of Senate on countering Russian malign influence
(sec. 1238)............................................ 295
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region...... 296
Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia
Maritime Security Initiative (sec. 1241)............... 296
Modification of annual report on military and security
developments involving the People's Republic of China
(sec. 1242)............................................ 297
Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1243).................... 298
Redesignation and modification of sense of Congress and
initiative for the Indo-Asia-Pacific region (sec. 1244) 298
Prohibition on participation of the People's Republic of
China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises
(sec. 1245)............................................ 298
Assessment of and report on geopolitical conditions in
the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1246).................... 298
Sense of Senate on United States-India defense
relationship (sec. 1247)............................... 299
Sense of Senate on strategic importance of maintaining
commitments under Compacts of Free Association (sec.
1248).................................................. 299
Sense of the Senate on United States military forces on
the Korean Peninsula (sec. 1249)....................... 299
Subtitle F--Reports.......................................... 300
Report on military and coercive activities of the
People's Republic of China in the South China Sea (sec.
1251).................................................. 300
Report on terrorist use of human shields (sec. 1252)..... 300
Report on Arctic strategies (sec. 1253).................. 300
Report on permanent stationing of a United States Army
brigade combat team in the Republic of Poland (sec.
1254).................................................. 301
Reports on nuclear capabilities of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (sec. 1255)................. 301
Report on United States military training opportunities
with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region
(sec. 1256)............................................ 301
Subtitle G--Others Matters................................... 302
Modification of authorities relating to acquisition and
cross-servicing agreements (sec. 1261)................. 302
Extension of authority for transfer of amounts for Global
Engagement Center (sec. 1262).......................... 302
Sense of Senate on purchase by Turkey of S-400 air
defense system (sec. 1263)............................. 303
Department of Defense support for stabilization
activities in national security interest of the United
States (sec. 1264)..................................... 304
Enhancement of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation (sec.
1265).................................................. 304
Certifications regarding actions by Saudi Arabia in Yemen
(sec. 1266)............................................ 305
Sense of the Senate on support for G5 Sahel Joint Force
countries (sec. 1267).................................. 305
Sense of Congress on broadening and expanding strategic
partnerships and allies (sec. 1268).................... 305
Removal of Turkey from the F-35 program (sec. 1269)...... 305
Increase in minimum amount of obligations from the
Special Defense Acquisition Fund for precision guided
munitions (sec. 1270).................................. 306
Items of Special Interest.................................... 306
Advise and assist efforts in Afghanistan................. 306
Clarification of authority to waive certain expenses for
activities of regional centers for security studies.... 307
Defense Institute of International Legal Studies......... 307
Human rights in Burma.................................... 308
Matters relating to Kosovo............................... 309
Notifications for sensitive military operations.......... 310
Report on U.S. assistance to the Lebanese Security Forces 311
Report on WRSA-I Stockpile Quantity Review............... 312
Role of Turkey in the F-35 supply chain.................. 312
United States-Mexico military cooperation................ 313
United States policy and strategy in the Western Balkans. 314
U.S. Africa Command...................................... 315
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 317
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec.
1301).................................................. 317
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 317
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 319
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 319
Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................ 319
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1402).................................................. 319
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1403)....................................... 319
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404).................... 319
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)....................... 319
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 319
Consolidation of reporting requirements under the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (sec.
1411).................................................. 319
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 319
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................ 319
Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1422)..................... 320
Oversight of health care provided to residents of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1423)............... 320
Modification of authority on acceptance of gifts for the
Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424)............... 320
Relief for residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
impacted by increase in fees (sec. 1425)............... 320
Limitation on applicability of fee increase for residents
of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1426)........ 321
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 321
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)...................... 321
Economical and efficient operation of working capital
fund activities (sec. 1432)............................ 321
Items of Special Interest.................................... 321
Assessment on material shortfalls in United States Forces
Korea for chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear defenses....................................... 321
Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile....... 322
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 323
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 323
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 323
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502).............. 323
Procurement (sec. 1503).................................. 323
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504).. 323
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505).................... 323
Military personnel (sec. 1506)........................... 323
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................ 323
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 323
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 324
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)....................... 324
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 324
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 324
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 324
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 324
Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (sec. 1531).. 324
Budget Items................................................. 324
Tomahawk................................................. 324
Ammunition less than $5 million.......................... 325
JASSM-ER................................................. 325
Items of Special Interest.................................... 325
Cargo inspections to counter Vehicle Borne Improvised
Explosive Device (IED) threats......................... 325
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 327
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 327
Modifications to Space Rapid Capabilities Office (sec.
1601).................................................. 327
Space warfighting policy and review of space capabilities
(sec. 1602)............................................ 327
Report on enhancements to the Global Positioning System
Operational Control Segment (sec. 1603)................ 327
Streamline of commercial space launch operations (sec.
1604).................................................. 328
Reusable launch vehicles (sec. 1605)..................... 328
Review of and report on activities of International Space
Station (sec. 1606).................................... 328
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities................................................. 329
Framework on governance, mission management, resourcing,
and effective oversight of Department of Defense combat
support agencies that are also elements of the
intelligence community (sec. 1611)..................... 329
Subtitle C--Cyberspace--Related Matters...................... 329
Part I--Cyberspace Generally............................. 329
Policy of the United States on cyberspace,
cybersecurity, cyber warfare, and cyber deterrence
(sec. 1621)........................................ 329
Affirming the authority of the Secretary of Defense
to conduct military activities and operations in
cyberspace (sec. 1622)............................. 329
Active defense and surveillance against Russian
Federation attacks in cyberspace (sec. 1623)....... 330
Reorganization and consolidation of certain cyber
provisions (sec. 1624)............................. 331
Designation of official for matters relating to
integrating cybersecurity and industrial control
systems within the Department of Defense (sec.
1625).............................................. 332
Assistance for small manufacturers in the defense
industrial supply chain on matters relating to
cybersecurity (sec. 1626).......................... 332
Modification of acquisition authority of the
Commander of United States Cyber Command (sec.
1627).............................................. 333
Email and Internet website security and
authentication (sec. 1628)......................... 333
Matters pertaining to the Sharkseer cybersecurity
programs (sec. 1629)............................... 333
Pilot program on modeling and simulation in support
of military homeland defense operations in
connection with cyber attacks on critical
infrastructure (sec. 1630)......................... 334
Security product integration framework (sec. 1631)... 335
Report on enhancement of software security for
critical systems (sec. 1632)....................... 336
Comply to connect and cybersecurity scorecard (sec.
1633).............................................. 337
Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1634)........... 338
Program to establish cyber institutes at institutions
of higher learning (sec. 1635)..................... 339
Establishment of Cybersecurity for Defense Industrial
Base Manufacturing Activity (sec. 1636)............ 339
Part II--Mitigation of Risks Posed by Providers of
Information Technology with Obligations to Foreign
Governments............................................ 339
Definitions (sec. 1637).............................. 339
Identification of countries of concern regarding
cybersecurity (sec. 1638).......................... 340
Mitigation of risks to national security posed by
providers of information technology products and
services who have obligations to foreign
governments (sec. 1639)............................ 340
Establishment of registry of disclosures (sec. 1640). 340
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 341
Oversight and management of the command, control, and
communications system for the national leadership of
the United States (sec. 1641).......................... 341
Modification to requirement for conventional long-range
standoff weapon (sec. 1642)............................ 341
Exchange program for nuclear weapons program employees
(sec. 1643)............................................ 341
Procurement authority for certain parts of
intercontinental ballistic missile fuzes (sec. 1644)... 342
Plan to train officers in nuclear command, control, and
communications (sec. 1645)............................. 342
Plan for alignment of acquisition of warhead life
extension programs and delivery vehicles for such
warheads (sec. 1646)................................... 343
Extension of annual report on plan for the nuclear
weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear
weapons delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command
and control system (sec. 1647)......................... 343
Prohibition on use of funds for activities to modify
United States aircraft to implement Open Skies Treaty
(sec. 1648)............................................ 344
Sense of Senate on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1649).... 344
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 344
Extension of prohibition relating to missile defense
information and systems (sec. 1651).................... 344
Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-3 IB
guided missiles (sec. 1652)............................ 344
Extension of requirement for reports on unfunded
priorities of Missile Defense Agency (sec. 1653)....... 345
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli
cooperative missile defense program co-development and
co-production (sec. 1654).............................. 345
Metrics for evaluating effectiveness of integrated
Ballistic Missile Defense System against operationally
realistic ballistic missile attacks (sec. 1655)........ 346
Modification of requirement relating to transition of
ballistic missile defense programs to military
departments (sec. 1656)................................ 347
Sense of the Senate on acceleration of missile defense
capabilities (sec. 1657)............................... 347
Integrated air and missile defense for evolving theater
missile threats (sec. 1658)............................ 348
Acceleration of hypersonic missile defense program (sec.
1659).................................................. 348
Sense of the Senate on allied partnerships for missile
defense (sec. 1660).................................... 348
Sense of the Senate on results of tests carried out by
Missile Defense Agency (sec. 1660A).................... 348
Sense of the Senate on discrimination for missile defense
(sec. 1660B)........................................... 348
Development and deployment of persistent space-based
sensor architecture (sec. 1660C)....................... 349
Modification of requirement to develop a space-based
ballistic missile intercept layer (sec. 1660D)......... 349
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 349
Assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of
Russia and China (sec. 1661)........................... 349
Budget exhibit on support provided to entities outside
Department of Defense (sec. 1662)...................... 349
Development of Electromagnetic Battle Management
capability for joint electromagnetic operations (sec.
1663).................................................. 350
Budget Items................................................. 350
Army Cyber Center of Excellence.......................... 350
Wargaming and simulator systems.......................... 350
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent......................... 351
Space Rapid Capabilities Office.......................... 351
Long Range Standoff Weapon............................... 351
Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared............. 352
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............. 352
Hypersonic missile defense............................... 352
Exploiting commercial technology for synthetic aperture
radar imaging and automated exploitation............... 352
United States Forces Korea Joint Emergent Operational
Need................................................... 353
Midcourse ballistic missile defense...................... 354
Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications 354
Sea-based X-band Radar................................... 354
Ballistic missile defense targets........................ 355
Boost phase intercept laser scaling...................... 355
Quartermaster Pathfinder................................. 355
Improved homeland defense interceptors................... 355
Midcourse segment test for ballistic missile defense..... 356
Missile Defense Tracking System.......................... 356
Items of Special Interest.................................... 356
Air Force nuclear acquisition programs................... 356
Airborne tracking and targeting system................... 357
Assessment of and plan for experimentation with Iron Dome
for short-range air defense............................ 357
Common Minuteman III maintenance vehicle................. 358
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber
classification......................................... 358
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber
hygiene................................................ 358
Comptroller General review of geographic combatant
command integration in nuclear planning and operations. 359
Conventional Prompt Strike early limited operational
capability............................................. 360
Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology............. 360
Cyber attacks by the Russian Federation and People's
Republic of China on Department of Defense affiliates.. 361
Defense options for Guam................................. 361
Department of Defense efforts to cooperate with
Department of Homeland Security Fusion Centers......... 361
Digital High Frequency Global Communications System...... 362
Diversified access to space with Federal Aviation
Administration-licensed spaceports..................... 362
Early Warning Radar upgrades............................. 364
Importance of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to United
States strategic deterrence............................ 365
Laser communications..................................... 365
Launch vehicle reusability............................... 365
Layered ballistic missile defense........................ 366
Live fire training on missiles nearing demilitarization.. 366
Long-term plan for weapons storage facilities............ 366
Mapping of Department of Defense base stations........... 367
Matters related to Department of Defense cyber ranges.... 367
Microsegmentation........................................ 368
Modular array for the direct distribution of integrated
energy on small satellites............................. 369
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Program
Executive Office staffing.............................. 369
On-orbit satellite servicing technology.................. 369
Portable satellite data receiver suites for deployed
warfighters............................................ 370
Review of connected devices on military installations.... 370
Space Rapid Capabilities Office.......................... 370
Transition of the Strategic Automatic Control and
Communications System to the Navy Nova Communications
System................................................. 371
United States-North Korea nuclear and missile threat
reduction.............................................. 371
TITLE XVII--COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. 373
Short title (sec. 1701).................................. 373
Sense of Congress (sec. 1702)............................ 373
Definitions (sec. 1703).................................. 373
Acceptance of written notices (sec. 1704)................ 373
Inclusion of partnership and side agreements in notice
(sec. 1705)............................................ 374
Declarations for certain covered transactions (sec. 1706) 374
Stipulations regarding transactions (sec. 1707).......... 374
Authority for unilateral initiation of reviews (sec.
1708).................................................. 374
Timing for reviews and investigations (sec. 1709)........ 374
Monitoring of non-notified and non-declared transactions
(sec. 1710)............................................ 374
Submission of certifications to Congress (sec. 1711)..... 375
Analysis by Director of National Intelligence (sec. 1712) 375
Information sharing (sec. 1713).......................... 375
Action by the President (sec. 1714)...................... 375
Judicial review (sec. 1715).............................. 375
Membership and staff of Committee (sec. 1716)............ 375
Actions by the Committee to address national security
risks (sec. 1717)...................................... 376
Modification of annual report and other reporting
requirements (sec. 1718)............................... 376
Certification of notices and information (sec. 1719)..... 376
Implementation plans (sec. 1720)......................... 376
Assessment of need for additional resources for Committee
(sec. 1721)............................................ 376
Funding (sec. 1722)...................................... 376
Centralization of certain Committee functions (sec. 1723) 377
Conforming amendments (sec. 1724)........................ 377
Requirements to identify and control the export of
emerging and foundational technologies (sec. 1725)..... 377
Export control enforcement authority (sec. 1726)......... 377
Prohibition on modification of civil penalties under
export control and sanctions laws (sec. 1727).......... 377
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security
(sec. 1728)............................................ 377
Limitation on cancellation of designation of Secretary of
the Air Force as Department of Defense Executive Agent
for a certain Defense Production Act program (sec.
1729).................................................. 378
Review of and report on certain defense technologies
critical to the United States maintaining superior
military capabilities (sec. 1730)...................... 378
Briefing on information from transactions reviewed by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
relating to foreign efforts to influence democratic
institutions and processes (sec. 1731)................. 378
Effective date (sec. 1732)............................... 378
Severability (sec. 1733)................................. 378
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 379
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 379
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 379
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 379
Effective date (sec. 2003)............................... 379
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 381
Summary.................................................. 381
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 381
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 381
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 381
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2104)................................... 381
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2016
project (sec. 2105).................................... 382
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 383
Summary.................................................. 383
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 383
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 383
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 383
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 383
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 385
Summary.................................................. 385
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 385
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 385
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 385
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 385
Modification of authority to carry out certain phased
project authorized in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017
(sec. 2305)............................................ 386
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2017 project (sec. 2306).......................... 386
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2018 project (sec. 2307).......................... 386
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2019 projects (sec. 2308).............................. 386
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 387
Summary.................................................. 387
Authorized defense agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 387
Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program
(sec. 2402)............................................ 387
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 387
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2404)................................... 387
Authorization of certain fiscal year 2018 project (sec.
2405).................................................. 388
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................ 389
Summary.................................................. 389
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program......................................... 389
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 389
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 389
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions............... 389
Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec.
2511).................................................. 389
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 391
Summary.................................................. 391
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 391
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 391
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 391
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 391
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 391
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 392
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 392
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 392
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2016 project (sec. 2611).......................... 392
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2018 project (sec. 2612).......................... 392
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2019 project (sec. 2613)............................... 392
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 393
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 393
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 393
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)....................... 393
Items of Special Interest.................................... 393
Aligning base realignment and closure goals with
infrastructure......................................... 393
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS....... 395
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 395
Additional authority to obtain architectural and
engineering services and construction design for
defense laboratory modernization pilot program (sec.
2801).................................................. 395
Modification of contract authority for acquisition,
construction, or furnishing of test facilities and
equipment (sec. 2802).................................. 395
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects in certain areas outside the United States
(sec. 2803)............................................ 396
Unspecified minor military construction projects related
to revitalization and recapitalization of Defense
Industrial Base Facilities (sec. 2804)................. 396
Congressional oversight of projects carried out pursuant
to laws other than Military Construction Authorization
Acts (sec. 2805)....................................... 396
Subtitle B--Project Management and Oversight Reforms......... 396
Updates and modifications to Department of Defense Form
1391, Unified Facilities Criteria, and military
installation master plans (sec. 2811).................. 396
Work in Process Curve charts and outlay tables for
military construction projects (sec. 2812)............. 397
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 397
Land exchange, Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona (sec.
2821).................................................. 397
Land conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (sec.
2822).................................................. 397
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 397
Commemoration of Freedman's Village (sec. 2831).......... 397
Strategic plan to improve capability of Department of
Defense training ranges and installations (sec. 2832).. 397
Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation
program (sec. 2833).................................... 397
Defense community infrastructure pilot program (sec.
2834).................................................. 398
Representation of installation interests in negotiations
and proceedings with carriers and other public
utilities (sec. 2835).................................. 398
White Sands Missile Range land enhancements (sec. 2836).. 398
Authority to transfer funds for construction of Indian
River Bridge (sec. 2837)............................... 398
Items of Special Interest.................................... 398
Assessment of military structures in permafrost areas.... 398
Encouraging the use of existing authorities for
construction of future National Guard Readiness Center. 399
Excess capacity estimates................................ 399
Federal land transfer for South Carolina National Guard.. 400
Incremental funding of military construction projects.... 400
Installation and facilities physical security gaps....... 401
National Maritime Intelligence Center Parking............ 401
Process for prioritizing funding and identifying
facilities for demolition.............................. 402
Review of Army Corps of Engineers Centers of
Standardization........................................ 402
Standoff weapons facility project at Andersen Air Force
Base................................................... 403
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 405
Summary.................................................. 405
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2901)................................... 405
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2902)................................... 405
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2903)................................... 405
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2904)....................... 405
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2905).............. 405
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 407
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 407
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 407
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 407
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 407
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 407
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)............................... 407
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.................................................. 407
Clarification of roles and authorities of National
Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111)............ 407
National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System
(sec. 3112)............................................ 409
Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (sec. 3113).. 409
Extension of enhanced procurement authority to manage
supply chain risk (sec. 3114).......................... 410
Pilot program on conduct by Department of Energy of
background reviews for access by certain individuals to
national security laboratories (sec. 3115)............. 410
Extension of authority for acceptance of contributions
for acceleration of removal or security of fissile
materials, radiological materials, and related
equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide (sec. 3116).... 410
Modification of limitation on development of low-yield
nuclear weapons (sec. 3117)............................ 411
Prohibition on use of funds for terminating activities at
MOX facility (sec. 3118)............................... 411
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 411
Modifications to cost-benefit analyses for competition of
management and operating contracts (sec. 3121)......... 411
Review of defense environmental cleanup activities (sec.
3122).................................................. 412
Survey of workforce of national security laboratories and
nuclear weapons production facilities (sec. 3123)...... 412
Elimination of certain reports (sec. 3124)............... 412
Implementation of Nuclear Posture Review by National
Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3125)............ 412
Budget Items................................................. 412
W76-2.................................................... 412
Defense nuclear waste disposal........................... 413
Items of Special Interest.................................... 413
Comptroller General review of domestic uranium industrial
base................................................... 413
Comptroller General review of Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility................................... 414
Comptroller General review of strategic radiation-
hardened microelectronics.............................. 414
Independent review of Engineering Assessment of plutonium
pit production......................................... 415
Nuclear smuggling detection in Iraq...................... 416
Repackaging of Transuranic Waste Drums at the Idaho
National Laboratory.................................... 416
Review of National Nuclear Security Administration
regulation............................................. 416
Roadmap for National Nuclear Security Administration
production capability improvements..................... 417
Status of Russian nuclear security upgrades.............. 418
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 419
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 419
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration.............................. 421
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 421
Permanent authority of Secretary of Transportation to
issue vessel war risk insurance (sec. 3502)............ 421
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 423
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 423
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 435
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 436
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 478
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 491
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 492
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 533
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 537
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 538
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 556
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 567
Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 568
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 569
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 571
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 572
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)............................................ 576
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 579
Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 580
Military construction for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4602)............................................ 600
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 603
Department of Energy national security programs (sec.
4701).................................................. 604
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 616
Departmental Recommendations............................. 616
Committee Action......................................... 616
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 620
Regulatory Impact........................................ 620
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 620

Calendar No. 439
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-262

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

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
TO MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

_______

June 5, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 2987]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
2019 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 2019;
(2) Authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2019;
(3) Authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2019;
(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 2019; and
(7) Authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2019.

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

One of Congress' most important constitutional
responsibilities is providing for the common defense. To
fulfill this fundamental duty, Congress has for the last 57
consecutive years passed the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), which authorizes funding and provides authorities for
the U.S. military. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted
overwhelmingly, 25-2, to advance this important legislation to
the Senate floor.
The committee takes seriously its obligation to our men and
women in uniform and their families. Their service represents
the best of our country, and this committee and the Congress
honor their sacrifice.
The committee markup of the NDAA, which is this year named
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019, supports a total of $716 billion for national
defense. The committee believes this authorization is necessary
to help the U.S. military implement the National Defense
Strategy (NDS) as it restores readiness, rebuilds capacity, and
modernizes the force.
The committee markup:
Authorizes critical funding for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to rebuild a ready and
capable force by increasing maritime capacity,
procuring combat aircraft and munitions, increasing
operation and maintenance funding, and aligning end
strength to NDS requirements.
Ensures the long-term viability of the all-
volunteer force by improving the quality of life of the
men and women of the total force (Active Duty, National
Guard, and Reserves), their families, and the civilians
and contractors who support our Armed Forces through
fair pay and policies, including reform of the officer
personnel management system.
Continues oversight and reform of the
acquisition system to ensure that our men and women in
uniform have the equipment they need to succeed in
future contested environments and drives innovation by
allocating funds for advanced technology development
and next-generation capabilities to ensure America's
military dominance.
Reforms the DOD to effectively confront the
challenges outlined in the NDS and emerging threats in
the information domain.
Advances our ability to protect our allies,
partners, and friends.
Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed
Forces along with the security forces of allied and
partner nations to combat ISIS, Al-Qaida, and other
violent extremist organizations while ensuring there is
a strategy for success.
Supports implementation of the Nuclear
Posture Review through modernization of our nuclear
deterrent and reforms to ensure the safety, security,
and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, delivery
systems, and infrastructure.
Terminates troubled and redundant programs
and activities, identifies efficiencies, and reduces
unnecessary defense expenditures not in line with the
NDS.
Promotes aggressive and thorough oversight
of the Department's programs and activities to ensure
compliance with relevant laws and regulations and
proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Preamble to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019

The array of national security threats facing the United
States is more complex and diverse than at any time since World
War II. The strategic environment has not been this competitive
since the Cold War. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the
comparative edge it once had over its competitors and
adversaries.
To remain successful, America must maintain its military
advantage, counter potential adversaries, and defend the
international order that has protected and advanced the
security, prosperity, and liberty of U.S. citizens and our
allies and partners. This requires a strategic framework that
establishes clear priorities and helps make tough choices.
Believing that the strategy development process in the
Department of Defense (DOD) needed to be reinvigorated, the
Congress acted in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to replace the
legislative mandate for the Quadrennial Defense Review with the
framework for a more focused and flexible National Defense
Strategy (NDS). The legislation included a clearly defined set
of expectations for what the strategy should address, including
the current and anticipated strategic environment,
prioritization among threats and missions, the roles and
missions of the Armed Forces, force planning constructs and
scenarios, force posture and readiness, and anticipated major
investments required to execute the strategy. The desire to
facilitate a more strategic approach to national defense also
contributed to the Congress' willingness to forge a bipartisan
budget agreement that increased defense and non-defense
spending and provided a modicum of fiscal predictability
through the end of next year.
The committee applauds Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and the senior leadership of the Department for their efforts
in crafting the National Defense Strategy that was delivered to
the Congress earlier this year. The document prioritizes the
challenges our nation faces and points toward potentially
significant changes to reshape the joint force and business of
the DOD. At the same time, much of the hardest work remains to
translate the NDS into detailed policy guidance to realign
defense programs, readiness, and posture in accordance with the
strategy. This responsibility rests equally with the executive
and legislative branches.
The committee is doing its part to meet its
responsibilities through the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019. Informed by the strategy, as well
as the administration's fiscal year 2019 budget request, the
NDAA aligns investments, requirements, structures, policies,
and authorizations with the new strategic orientation
articulated in the NDS.
The NDAA supports the latest budget agreement of $715.9
billion in fiscal year 2019 for national defense. It authorizes
a base defense budget of $639.2 billion for the Department of
Defense and the national security programs of the Department of
Energy. The focus of this funding will be building a joint
force that is ready, equipped, and capable of maintaining
military overmatch against potential adversaries. The NDAA also
authorizes $68.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.
While the recent 2-year budget deal is a helpful step in
the right direction, a higher funding topline alone will not
sufficiently address the challenges we face. Even with adequate
resources, we must make difficult choices about roles and
missions, force development, resource allocation, and
investment priorities.
To that end, the National Defense Authorization Act
advances four primary themes:
(1) First, the NDAA adjusts the budget request to align
resources in a manner consistent with the priorities and
principles of the NDS. After years of warning from senior
defense leaders, the NDS addresses the degrading state of U.S.
military capabilities vis-a-vis potential competitors. While
there are many contributing factors--unstable budgets,
sustained high operational tempo, as well as adversaries'
increased investments in military capabilities--the committee
believes that reversing this trend should be a high priority
for the Department. To encourage these efforts, the NDAA
recommends re-prioritizing funds for each of the Services
toward requirements that directly support the NDS.
For example, the NDAA makes significant investments in
research and development (R&D) to re-establish a credible
combat advantage. The legislation increases R&D spending by
$1.2 billion, the majority of which is for science and
technology spending with an emphasis on high priority emerging
technologies like hypersonics, artificial intelligence, space,
cyber, and directed energy. The NDAA boosts funding for
promising new technologies and concepts such as distributed,
low-cost, autonomous, and attritable systems in every domain--
on land, in the air, on and under the sea, and in space and
cyberspace. The NDAA also accelerates programs that enable
operations in contested environments against peer competitors,
among other NDS priorities, including accelerating the delivery
of fixed-site cruise missile defense, increasing procurement of
advanced munitions, and providing additional money for Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers and Virginia-class submarines.
(2) Second, the NDAA provides one overarching reporting
requirement to the Secretary of Defense: a list of detailed and
specific questions regarding the roles, missions, and
requirements of the military Services that the committee
believes are raised by the NDS. The NDAA requires the Secretary
to re-evaluate the highest priority missions for the DOD, the
roles of the joint force in the performance of these missions,
and the capabilities required to complete these missions. More
specifically, the committee wants the Secretary to update the
roles and missions of the military Services and to reassess how
the NDS impacts end strength requirements, how the military
will conduct the counterterrorism mission at a more sustainable
cost to military readiness and resources, and how the focus on
competing against peer adversaries and operating in contested
environments impacts capability requirements and investments
throughout the joint force. The committee believes that serious
answers to these and other strategic questions will improve the
Congress's ability to perform oversight of the DOD's future
program and budget requests.
(3) Third, the NDAA includes reforms to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to support effective implementation of the
NDS. The committee believes organizational change will be key
to addressing systemic problems and positioning the Department
to confront the challenges outlined in the NDS.
The ultimate success of the NDS will depend on
implementation guided by strong civilian leadership determined
to make the difficult choices required to align policies,
authorities, organizations, requirements, and investments and
informed by a realistic assessment of available resources. To
help answer some of these big questions, the NDAA creates a new
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans,
Assessments, Readiness, and Capabilities. By combining these
strategically-oriented tasks in one office, the committee seeks
to align the critical functions necessary to exert strong
civilian leadership in the development of defense strategy and
its translation into detailed policy to guide investments in
necessary capabilities, readiness, and posture for the future
joint force. The NDAA would re-designate the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and clarify its role as the Department's
Chief Human Capital Officer.
The NDAA also furthers the reform of the Department's
strategy development process that began with the statutory
requirement for the NDS. It clarifies the three strategic
guidance documents that support and implement the NDS (the
Defense Planning Guidance, the Contingency Planning Guidance or
Guidance for the Employment of the Force, and the Global
Defense Posture Report), describes the elements to be included
in each document, and requires the Secretary of Defense to
submit each document to Congress. These documents set forth the
Secretary's policy guidance as to what the Department should
buy for the joint force, how the joint force is to be used, and
where the joint force is to be postured around the world in
order to execute the NDS. Receiving this strategic guidance is
essential to congressional oversight efforts.
(4) Finally, the NDAA modernizes officer personnel
management to bolster the effectiveness, recruitment, and
retention of the all-volunteer force. The NDS acknowledges that
the current joint force must change to meet the threat of
renewed great power competition, calling for a ``broad
revision'' of talent management principles among the Services
to increase the lethality and adaptability of the force. The
38-year-old Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (Public
Law 96-513) requires all military Services to manage their
officer corps in the same general manner within specific
constraints. By reforming this system, the NDAA will provide
for flexibility in the careers of commissioned officers and
better serve the demands of the modern force.
After the end of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a
robust comparative military advantage over other nations.
However, through significant investment and military
modernization, near-peer competitors eventually eroded
America's military superiority. Meanwhile, decisions and
policies we pursued--and those we did not--had consequences for
our military: commitment to persistent counterterrorism
operations, inadequate funding and budget uncertainty, and
misplaced priorities and acquisition failures. Now, Russia and
China present significant military challenges and could
credibly threaten the security and prosperity of our country.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
will help the United States change course. It will recalibrate
and refocus our efforts on readiness restoration, capabilities
modernization, and concept development--all aimed at
reasserting a quantitative and qualitative military advantage
over potential adversaries. The recent National Defense
Strategy provides a framework to address these challenges, and
the NDAA builds on the changes outlined in the NDS while
providing the DOD with the resources and authorities it needs
to play its part in the national effort to restore American
power in the new era of competition.

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 2019 was $707.9
billion. Of this amount, $617.1 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $21.8 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy (DOE), and $69.0 billion was requested for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $707.9 billion in fiscal year 2019, including
$617.6 billion for base DOD programs, $21.7 billion for
national security programs in the DOE, and $68.5 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 2019 defense
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2019 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

Deployment by the Army of an interim cruise missile defense capability
(sec. 111)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Army to consider alternate short-term options to fill its
cruise missile defense gap with existing systems and accelerate
the Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) system
independently of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle
Command System (IBCS) deployment, leveraging entities such as
the Defense Digital Service or the Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental and report the determination of that short-term
option to the congressional defense committees no later than 90
days after the enactment of this act. The committee recognizes
the Army's commitment to missile defense, as shown through the
recently employed cross-functional team dedicated to missile
defense, and commends the Army's dedication to the mission, as
demonstrated through the increased funding allocation to the
Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense program in the fiscal year
2019 budget request. However, the committee is deeply concerned
about the paucity of land-based cruise missile defense
capabilities and the Army's corresponding inability to
adequately protect the joint force's fixed site systems, such
as airfields and logistical depots. Integrated air and missile
defense is critical for joint operations, but assets are not
currently ready to counter an adversary's potential complex,
integrated attack, thus leaving critical assets vulnerable.
Furthermore, current air and missile defense forces fall
dangerously short of being an effective and foundational
defense for the kind of conflict outlined by the National
Defense Strategy. While adversary air and missile threats
become more capable, more complex, more powerful, and more
numerous, U.S. air and missile defense capabilities have
regressed. Specifically, the IBCS and IFPC systems have
struggled to make real progress in a reasonable amount of time.
The IFPC system has experienced significant delays while
employing a risky acquisition strategy. By attempting to
leverage the IBCS system for IFPC, the Army exposes itself to
additional delays if certain testing milestones are not
achieved on time. Furthermore, the IBCS system is already
delayed 7 years and has expended about $1.0 billion to date.
The committee is not confident that the Army will successfully
deliver an IBCS system on its current timeline due to the
previous and recurring schedule delays. Any further delays will
jeopardize timelines for delivery of integrated capabilities.
Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office has stated
that the IFPC Increment 2-1 Block 1 Program has struggled with
integration of all four components--the Sentinel radar, the
AIM-9X interceptor, the IBCS fire control, and the multi-
mission launcher. While the committee appreciates the Army's
dedication to innovation within the IBCS framework, the Army is
overextended in its IBCS effort and is therefore slowing the
development and deployment of IFPC.
As outlined by the National Defense Strategy, cruise
missile defense is a critical capability to defend against
Russian and Chinese threats. Without this capability, the
committee is concerned the U.S. Army will fail to successfully
perform its mission to protect the joint force.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G
aircraft program (sec. 121)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear
procurement for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for up to 3
years.

Multiyear procurement authority for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE)
aircraft program (sec. 122)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide to
the Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear
procurement for E-2D aircraft for up to 5 years.

Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding contracts
for certain vessels (sec. 123)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to
include fiscal year 2019 the prohibition on funds from being
used to enter into, or prepare to enter into, sole source
contracts for one or more Joint High Speed Vessels or
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), unless the Secretary of
the Navy submits to the congressional defense committees a
certification and a report.
The committee notes that since 2011 the Navy requirement
for EPFs has been 10 ships, which was most recently validated
in December 2016. In 2013, this requirement was met with the
procurement of the 10th EPF, and the Navy planned to shut down
the production line.
Without an authorization or request in the President's
Budget, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-235) included procurement of an 11th
EPF at a cost of $200.0 million. Two more EPFs, the 12th and
13th, were added at a cost of $225.0 million each in the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-113) and Department of Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-141) respectively,
without an authorization or request in the President's Budget.
The fiscal year 2015 and 2016 EPFs were awarded to a single
shipbuilder, with no competition, using a sole source contract.

Prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port waterborne security
barriers (sec. 124)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds from being used to procure new Navy port waterborne
security barriers unless the Secretary of the Navy submits a
waiver to the congressional defense committees.
The committee notes that the former Commander of Navy
Installations Command, Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, testified
before the committee on April 5, 2016, that current Navy
maritime security barriers do ``not meet the requirement for
high-speed boats that could be used for a terrorist attack.''
Furthermore, the committee is aware of significant
performance shortfalls of the current maritime security
barriers that continue to result in unacceptable anti-terrorism
and force protection gaps in at least one location.
The committee understands that the Navy is testing other
Navy port waterborne security barriers, and Admiral Smith
testified that these barriers will better be able to stop
vessels. The committee further understands that these barriers
may provide improved protection against low profile surface
threats, capacity to withstand multiple coordinated attacks,
and ability to endure environmental extremes.
The committee also notes that in a May 2016 report to the
Congress, the Navy concluded that a commercial-off-the-shelf
maritime security barrier ``has the potential to provide
greater operational capability compared to the current port
security barriers against current and projected threats.'' A
business case analysis described in this report showed a
significant decrease in sustainment costs for a new
commercially available system.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not set
requirements, requested funding, or released a request for
proposals to procure new Navy port waterborne security
barriers.
Therefore, the committee urges the Navy to expeditiously
set requirements, request funding, and release a request for
proposals with full and open competition for new Navy port
waterborne security barriers.

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-6 (sec. 125)

The committee recommends a provision authorizing the
Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts
beginning in fiscal year 2019 for the procurement of 625
Standard Missile-6 guided missiles pending the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation confirmation of the Secretary
of the Navy's preliminary findings as required in subsection a
of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.

Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral Combat Ship (sec.
126)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds from being used to exceed the total procurement quantity
listed in revision five of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
acquisition strategy unless the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment submits to the congressional
defense committees a certification.
The committee notes the Navy force structure assessment
requirement and LCS acquisition strategy total procurement
quantity of 32 LCS was met in fiscal year 2018. The committee
further notes that in testimony before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate on April 17, 2018, the joint statement
of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems and
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition stated, ``The [budget request] includes one LCS in
[fiscal year] 2019 to sustain the viability of the industrial
base until the FFG(X) award in [fiscal year] 2020.''
Accordingly, the committee believes that before further LCS
procurement, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment should certify that such procurement: (1) Is in the
national security interests of the United States; (2) Will not
result in exceeding the low rate initial production quantity
approved in the LCS acquisition strategy in effect at the time
of the certification; and (3) Is necessary to maintain a full
and open competition for the guided missile frigate (FFG(X))
with a single source award in fiscal year 2020.

Nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers (sec. 127)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the procurement of naval nuclear reactor power units and
associated reactor components for the nuclear refueling of the
following aircraft carriers: USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), USS
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), and USS
George H.W. Bush (CVN-77).
The committee notes that the procurement lead time for some
nuclear components required to conduct a nuclear refueling
precedes the authorization for the associated aircraft carrier
refueling by several years.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 7314a of title 10, United
States Code, as added by section 1014 of this Act, in order to
maintain appropriate oversight of program execution of the
nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers, the committee
recommends the authorizations contained in this provision.

Limitation on funding for Amphibious Assault Vehicle Product
Improvement Program (sec. 128)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit
twenty-five percent of funds authorized for Amphibious Assault
Vehicles product improvement program (AAV PIP) from being
obligated or expended until the Secretary of Defense provides
the required report identified in the section titled Report on
the Highest-priority roles and missions of the Department of
Defense and the Armed Forces.

Subtitle D--Air Force Programs

Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of E-8 JSTARS
aircraft (sec. 141)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the availability of funds to retire, or prepare to retire, any
E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
aircraft.
As part of its fiscal year 2019 budget request, the Air
Force is seeking to cancel the JSTARS recapitalization program
and retire three existing JSTARS aircraft. The Air Force's
rational is that current assessments demonstrate a
recapitalized JSTARS aircraft will not be survivable in a
highly contested environment during conflict. In its place, the
Air Force is seeking to invest in a portfolio of new ideas and
emerging capabilities to fulfill the Ground Moving Target
Indicator (GMTI) mission.
The committee agrees with the National Defense Strategy on
the need to focus on peer adversaries and is supportive of the
Air Force's efforts to move to an Advanced Battle Management
System. However, the committee is concerned with the Air
Force's plan to divest current capability before its
replacement technology is developed and operational. While the
Air Force's plan for 2030 and beyond is aspirational with no
guarantee of success, it is willing to make decisive,
irreversible decisions about the retirement of current
capabilities. The committee is concerned that this dynamic
creates the potential, if not the likelihood, of extended
capability gaps should the Air Force's ambitious plan not meet
reality, either in time or feasibility.
The committee believes the Air Force must ensure a robust
capability to execute the GMTI and airborne battle management
missions throughout the transition to its planned Advance
Battle Management System.

B-52H aircraft system modernization report (sec. 142)

The committee recommends a provision requiring a long-term
modernization plan for the B-52H aircraft due 180 days after
the enactment of this Act.
The Air Force has stated it intends to keep the B-52H
flying through 2040, at which time the newest aircraft, having
left the assembly line in 1962, will be 78 years old. The
committee recognizes the value of the B-52 and is supportive of
the Department of Defense's efforts to continue to employ its
unique capabilities for the foreseeable future.
However, the committee is cognizant that, given the age of
the B-52, any modernization effort must consider the whole
system. For example, because the radar is integrated into the
electronic warfare system, the radar cannot simply be
modernized without taking into account the characteristics of
the future electronic warfare system. The committee believes it
is imperative that the Air Force take a holistic approach to
the modernization of the B-52 to ensure its continued relevance
and effectiveness.

Repeal of funding restriction for EC-130H Compass Call Recapitalization
Program and review of program acceleration opportunities (sec.
143)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
Section 131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 13 Stat. 2037) and
require the Secretary of the Air Force to provide periodic
reports to the congressional defense committees on the status
of the EC-130H Compass Call recapitalization program.

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

Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft program (sec. 151)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear
procurement for C-130J aircraft for up to 5 years.

Quarterly updates on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 152)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to
provide the congressional defense committees quarterly updates
on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
The committee notes the F-35 program is facing an
inflection point in its lifecycle. The committee is encouraged
that the program is at long last on the cusp of completing the
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but continues
to have a number of concerns. The sustainment, modification,
and modernization of the F-35s will be a continuous challenge
for the Department of Defense (DOD) for decades to come. The
committee believes if the right foundation is not established
today, prior to a steep ramp in production, the viability of
the program will be put into doubt, depriving our warfighters
of urgently-needed capabilities necessary to deter and, if
necessary, defeat any adversary.
The F-35 sustainment enterprise is struggling to provide
the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps an affordable strategy
that meets their operational needs. As the number of fielded
aircraft nearly triples in the next 3 years, the challenge will
grow exponentially. The committee is particularly concerned by
the Not Mission Capable-Supply (NMC-S) rates of the F-35. In
part, the high NMC-S rates are due to a lack of adequate repair
capacity. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published
a report on October 26, 2017, titled ``F-35 Aircraft
Sustainment: DoD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting
Readiness and Cost Transparency'' (GAO-18-75), that stated the
DOD ``does not have enough capacity to repair F-35 aircraft
parts because the establishment of repair capabilities at the
military depots is 6 years behind schedule.'' The report goes
on to say, ``Program officials in part attributed these delays
to the military services not providing enough funding for depot
requirements; however, service officials told [the GAO] the
program office did not clearly identify some depot requirements
in a timely manner necessary for the services to fund those
requirements.''
The GAO cited five key challenges facing the Department:
(1) Limited repair capacity at depots; (2) Spare parts
shortages; (3) Undefined technical data needs; (4) Unfunded
intermediate-level maintenance capabilities; and (5) Delays in
the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) development
and uncertain funding.
While production of aircraft has begun to rapidly increase,
development of the baseline Block 3F configuration has
continued. There are over 250 aircraft now delivered and
fielded, despite the fact that Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation (IOT&E) will not even begin until the fall of 2018.
The committee notes the continued costs associated with the
concurrency of development and production. In June 2017, the
Joint Program Office (JPO) estimated the cost to upgrade the
fielded fleet of 266 aircraft to the Block 3F System
Development and Demonstration standard at $1.6 billion. In
January 2018, the JPO estimated the cost to upgrade the older
Lot 2-8 aircraft to Block 4 will be approximately $16.0 million
per aircraft and the newer Lot 9-10 aircraft will be
approximately $13.0 million.
The committee is concerned by the enormous retrofit costs
required to provide the warfighters the capabilities they need
from the F-35. The committee supports upgrading as many F-35s
as possible to the most advanced configuration in order to,
most importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter
but also to reduce the complication of maintaining and
sustaining multiple configurations of three different aircraft.
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee provides additional
funding for the modifications of F-35 aircraft. However, the
committee is concerned the modification costs and lack of
industrial capacity for parts will limit the Department's
ability to achieve a rationalized and maximally capable F-35
fleet.
Despite the clear and obvious issues, the committee is not
convinced the program office or Services are adequately
addressing the problems, including providing adequate funding
for spare parts and to stand up depot component repair
capabilities and purchase the necessary lay-in material, both
of which are years behind schedule.
The committee urges the Services to urgently prioritize
funding spare parts and depot repair capability. Elsewhere in
this legislation, the committee recommends funding increases to
accelerate procurement of spare parts and the establishment of
depot component repair capability.
At the same time, the sustainment enterprise is struggling
to keep up with the number of fielded aircraft and modification
costs continue to rise, the JPO is about to embark on the Block
4 modernization program, known as Continuous Capability
Development and Delivery (C2D2). An enormously expensive and
complicated effort in its own right, C2D2 seeks to rapidly
field advanced capabilities to the warfighter under an agile
software development construct. While supportive of moving to a
more agile and rapid capability fielding cycle, the committee
remains concerned with the ability of the Department to execute
in an affordable and efficient manner on a program as large and
complicated as the F-35.
The committee has been encouraged by the renewed commitment
to transparency and communication with the Congress and looks
forward to continuing to work together to ensure the success of
the F-35 program. In order to facilitate this collaboration,
the committee believes it prudent for the Congress to be
regularly updated on the status and direction of this vital
program.

Authority to procure additional polar-class icebreakers (sec. 153)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) by striking subsections
(a) and (b), as well as providing authority to enter into a
contract or contracts for up to six polar-class icebreakers.

Budget Items

Army

Interim cruise missile defense capability for the Army

The budget request for the Army included $145.6 million in
line number 3 of Missile Procurement, Army (MPA), for the
Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2-
Intercept weapon system.
The committee believes this is insufficient to deliver the
critical need for cruise missile defenses of fixed assets and
to ensure any delays that emanate from the IFPC weapon system
or the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command
System.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $500.0
million in line number 3 of MPA for procurement of an interim
cruise missile defense capability for the Army, which equates
to about two batteries for such a capability.

Army Tactical Missile System

The budget request included $221.7 million in line number
16 in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA), for Army Tactical
Missile System (ATACMS) modifications.
The total request is for 402 ATACMS; however, the maximum
capacity for ATACMS is 320.
Therefore, committee recommends a decrease of $80.0 million
in line number 16 in MPA to align total quantity to 320.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle

The budget request included of $480.0 million in line
number 2 of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV)
for the procurement of 131 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles
(AMPV).
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and to be better prepared to execute the
National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its
modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities
needed for combined arms maneuver against a peer adversary. The
committee understands that the AMPV program continues to work
through performance challenges of key components.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in line number 2 W&TCV for the procurement of the AMPV.

Stryker modification

The budget request included $287.5 million in line number 4
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for
Stryker modifications.
The Army has requested a transfer of $149.4 from line
number 4 to line number 5 of WTCV for Stryker upgrades.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $149.4
million in line number 4 of WTCV.

Stryker upgrade

The budget request included $21.9 million in line number 5
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for
Stryker upgrades.
The Army has requested a transfer of $149.4 from line
number 4 to line number 5 of WTCV for Stryker upgrades.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $149.4
million in line number 5 of WTCV.

Bradley Program (Modifications)

The budget request included $625.0 million in line number 6
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV), for the
procurement of Bradley fighting vehicles.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and to be better prepared to execute the
National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its
modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities
needed for combined arms maneuver against a peer adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $324.0
million in line number 6 W&TCV for the procurement of the
Bradley.

Paladin Integrated Management

The budget request included $351.8 million in line number 8
of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the
procurement of 30 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) sets.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and to be better prepared to execute the
National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its
modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities
needed for combined arms maneuver against a peer adversary.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $110.0
million in line number 8 WTCV for the procurement of the PIM.

Small caliber reduction

The budget request included $2.2 billion for Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $41.8 million was for LI
0132E00700, CTG 5.56 mm. The committee notes the increase in
the appropriations omnibus for fiscal year 18 and therefore a
decrease of $6.7 million in PAA 0132E00700 due to forward
financing.

Army ammunition reduction

The budget request included $2.2 billion for Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $184.0 million was for LI
8750E27501, Artillery, Fuze, Precision Guidance Kit (PGK).
The committee is very supportive of the PGK program, its
combat performance to date, and the Army's goal to stockpile
PGK rounds to reach its total Army munitions requirements.
However, given the Army's plans to replace current PGK rounds
with anti-jam capable PGK rounds in the near future and the
requested three-fold increase compared to fiscal year 2018, the
requested funding increase in fiscal year 2019 could be better
aligned for other readiness priorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in PAA to LI 8750E27501 for PGK.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

The budget request included $1.32 billion in line number 6
of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 3,390
Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV).
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and to be better prepared to execute the
National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its
modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities
needed for combined arms maneuver against a peer adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $250.0
million in line number 6 OPA for the procurement of the JLTV.

U.S. Southern Command unfunded priorities increase

The budget request included $8.0 billion for Other
Procurement, Army, of which $46.0 million was for line number
71, Modification of In Service Equipment (Intelligence
Support).
The committee notes that United States Southern Command
identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an
unfunded priority.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.8
million to line number 71, Modification of In Service Equipment
(Intelligence Support).

Army automated data processing equipment

The budget request included $8.0 billion in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), of which $201.9 million was for line
number 112, automated data processing equipment.
The committee notes that the Army is moving towards
adoption of more commercial information technology (IT)
solutions, including commercial cloud and networking
capabilities and consolidating more IT purchases with other
Department of Defense elements and services. As the Army
consolidates IT purchases and develops integrated personnel
systems in other budget lines, the committee expects to see a
decrease in this budget line.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million in OPA for line number 112, automated data processing
equipment.

Navy

F-35C Joint Strike Fighter

The budget request included $1.1 billion in line number 3
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of nine F-
35C aircraft.
The committee supports the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and
the delivery of its unique capabilities to our warfighters as
quickly as reasonably possible. However, the committee remains
concerned with the state of the F-35 sustainment enterprise and
its ability to efficiently and affordably bear the rapidly
increasing demands upon it.
The committee believes the enterprise is behind,
particularly in regards to spare parts and depot component
repair capacity. If the program does not allow the sustainment
enterprise to catch up to the currently fielded and soon to be
fielded aircraft, maintenance will continue to fall further
behind its needed capability and capacity and will ultimately
reduce the number of aircraft the Department of Defense is able
to procure, sustain, and upgrade.
The Navy and Joint Program Office's belated appreciation
for the need for a shipboard intermediate maintenance
capability has further challenged the ability to effectively
and efficiently sustain the Department of the Navy's F-35s
going forward.
The committee believes it is prudent to establish a solid
sustainment base before the steep ramp of production aircraft
overwhelms the enterprise's ability to sustain them. Elsewhere
in this legislation, the committee seeks to increase funding
for F-35 spares, modifications, and depot repair capability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $121.0
million and one aircraft in line number 3 of APN.

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

The budget request included $742.7 million in line number
16 of Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN), for the procurement of
four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.
The committee recognizes the vital contributions of the E-
2D Advanced Hawkeye to present and future carrier air wing
operations. As the airborne battle manager, the E-2D is the
linchpin for carrier strike group concepts of operations,
including Naval Integrated Fire Control--Counter Air.
The committee is supportive of accelerating capabilities
that enhance our abilities to deter and, if necessary, defeat
any peer or near-peer adversary. The committee also recognizes
the critical need to provide our weapons schools with the
latest equipment to ensure the most relevant and effective
tactics are being developed and disseminated.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $175.0
million in line number 16 of APN for the procurement of one
additional E-2D aircraft. This item was included on the Chief
of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities list.

USMC OA-X light attack procurement

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for the acquisition of a fleet of
light attack aircraft.
The committee believes that, as the nation's middle-weight
expeditionary force-in-readiness, the Marine Corps could
benefit from a fleet of low-cost, light attack aircraft that
would require minimal work to develop. These aircraft could
conduct counterterrorism operations, perform close air support
(CAS), and other missions in permissive and semi-permissive
environments such as those where employing low altitude rotary-
wing CAS platforms has proven prohibitive. These aircraft would
also help season pilots to mitigate the potential for a
shortfall in the future. The low cost per flight hour,
simplicity, and tailored capabilities of a light attack
platform could also provide a significant increase in the
amount of support provided to Marine, joint force, and allied
ground units. It may also help provide an affordable path to a
light attack capability for allies, partners, and friends with
limited financial resources.
The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps' future
tactical aviation foundation rests almost solely on 5th
generation fighters such as the F-35B and C variants. However,
the bulk of Marine Corps aviation missions executed in the past
15 years revolve around providing CAS and non-traditional
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (NT-ISR) flights.
While the F-35 offers unique capabilities against a peer
competitor, the committee questions the value of using such an
exquisite platform, with its high cost per flight hour, short
time-on station, and low readiness rates, to perform CAS and
NT-ISR missions in support of enduring requirements in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, on the African continent and for
other limited contingency operations. Additionally, using a
light attack platform to meet the majority of Marine CAS and
NT-ISR requirements reduces the wear on expensive, low-
observable aircraft and enables those aircrews to focus on
their primary operational missions in high-end contested and
degraded operations against potential peer adversaries.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million in APN, line number 71, for a total of $100.0 million,
for acquisition of a light attack aircraft fleet. This effort
will be informed by the Air Force's Light Attack Capabilities
Experimentation Campaign conducted in fiscal year 2017 to
evaluate capabilities for armed reconnaissance, strike control
and reconnaissance, combat search and rescue, CAS, and other
combat missions.

C-40 aircraft

The budget request included $206.0 million in line number
18 of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of two
C-40 aircraft.
The committee notes that two C-40 aircraft were included in
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-141), and therefore the requested aircraft
are excess to need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $206.0
million and two aircraft in line 18 of APN.

USMC Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft System
procurement

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN) for the acquisition of Medium-Altitude
Long-Endurance (MALE) Group 5 drones.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps uses the
RQ-21A Blackjack Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to provide
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) for its
Ground Combat Element. Numerous Urgent Universal Need
Statements from operational commanders have repeatedly pointed
out serious shortfalls in the range, payload, survivability,
and overall effectiveness of the RQ-21 system. The proposed
solution to many of these shortfalls is an, as yet
undetermined, replacement system called the Marine Air Ground
Task Force Unmanned Expeditionary Capability (MUX) system. This
system's Initial Operational Capability date has shifted from
2015, as reported in the Marine Corps Aviation Plan in 2005, to
sometime after 2026, with a Full Operational Capability
forecasted for 2035 or later.
The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps' lack of
reliable capability and capacity in the UAS field leaves them
vulnerable to enemy action and less effective at completing
their assigned missions over the next decade or longer. The
committee also notes that the Marine Corps is currently
operating MQ-9 Reaper UAS under contract to support operations
in Afghanistan. The committee believes that a MALE Group 5 type
UAS platform offers the best combination of capabilities
available currently to support maneuver elements on the ground.
Such platforms are able to perform ISR, Signals Intelligence,
Electronic Warfare, fire support and communications relay tasks
and have proven range, survivability, and reliability
characteristics from years of use supporting ground and special
operations units. Procurement of a Group 5 type MALE UAS solves
all of the capability and performance gaps of the RQ-21 and
will help the Marine Corps to more precisely refine its
requirements for the future MUX program. Additionally, the
experience gained in MALE UAS operations and fire support
execution as well as the ISR acquired by using such a system
will help to train and educate a new generation of Marine UAS
operators and planners, who will then be ready to transition
smoothly to a future MUX system.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million in APN, line number 72, for a total of $100.0 million,
for acquisition of a Group 5 MALE UAS fleet.

EA-18G cognitive electronic warfare

The budget request included $1.2 billion in line number 30
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of
modifications to all models of the F/A-18 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the growing importance of
electronic warfare and its critical role in any fight with a
peer or near-peer adversary. The committee believes it is
imperative the United States maintains relevant and effective
electronic warfare capabilities. Moving forward, the ability to
sense and react to the electromagnetic spectrum will be key to
success in any conflict.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.9
million in line number 30 of APN for Reactive Electronic Attack
Measures technology for the EA-18G Growler. This item was
included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities
list.

Adaptive Radar Countermeasure

The budget request included $166.3 million in line number
49 of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of
common electronic countermeasures equipment.
The committee understands that the survivability of U.S.
strike fighters will clearly be essential to the success of any
conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in line number 49 of APN for Adaptive Radar
Countermeasure (ARC). This item was included on the Chief of
Naval Operations' unfunded priorities list.

F-35B modifications

The budget request included $36.6 million in line number 59
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), F-35B STOVL Series, for
procurement of modifications to F-35B aircraft.
The Department of Defense continues to deal with the
ramifications of the concurrency of development and production
of the F-35. As the number of fielded aircraft grows while
development is still ongoing, the costs continue to rise.
Concurrency will continue to be a logistical and financial
burden as the program moves on to the Block 4 modernization
program, known as Continuous Capability Development and
Delivery. According to recent estimates, the cost of upgrading
aircraft up to the Block 4 configuration will be from $12.0 to
$16.0 million per jet, adding to the already considerable
affordability issues facing the program.
The committee supports upgrading as many F-35s as possible
to the most advanced configuration in order to, most
importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but
also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining
multiple configurations of three different aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $33.5
million in line number 59 of APN for F-35B modifications.

F-35C modifications

The budget request included $21.2 million in line number 60
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), F-35 CV Series, for
procurement of modifications to F-35C aircraft.
The Department of Defense continues to deal with the
ramifications of the concurrency of development and production
of the F-35. As the number of fielded aircraft grows while
development is still ongoing, the costs continue to rise.
Concurrency will continue to be a logistical and financial
burden as the program moves on to the Block 4 modernization
program, known as Continuous Capability Development and
Delivery. According to recent estimates, the cost of upgrading
aircraft up to the Block 4 configuration will be from $12.0 to
$16.0 million per jet, adding to the already considerable
affordability issues facing the program.
The committee supports upgrading as many F-35s as possible
to the most advanced configuration in order to, most
importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but
also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining
multiple configurations of three different aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in line number 60 of APN for F-35C modifications.

F-35 spares and repair parts

The budget request included $1.8 billion in line number 64
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of
aircraft spares and repair parts.
The committee remains concerned by the readiness rates of
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A particularly concerning trend
is the increase in the percentage of aircraft unable to fly
while awaiting replacement parts due to inadequate supply
support, known as the Not Mission Capable--Supply (NMC-S) rate.
As the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)
notes in the January 2018 annual report, ``Concurrency of
production and development, lower-than-expected reliability for
parts, inadequate fault isolation, and early program decisions
to not adequately fund procurement of spares have contributed
to the NMC-S rate.''
Given this situation, which will be exacerbated as
production ramps up steeply in the coming years, the committee
is perplexed by the Services' combined decrease of $546.4
million for F-35 spares between fiscal years 2020 and 2022.
While the Department of Defense claims the cuts are due to
``process improvements by Services to meet Departmental
readiness efficiency goals in military spending,'' the
committee is unaware of any such process improvements that
would resolve a NMC-S rate that is nearly double the goal, let
alone that would warrant cutting a half billion dollars in
spare parts. Should such process improvements exist, the
committee strongly urges the Services to share them, as they
would clearly bring immense benefit to the entire Department.
The committee believes the F-35 program urgently needs to
increase the supply of spare parts.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
million for F-35B spares and repair parts and $20.0 million F-
35C spares and repair parts for a total increase of $50.0
million in line number 64 of APN for aircraft spares and repair
parts.

Sidewinder

The budget request included $77.9 million in line number 5
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Sidewinder missile.
The committee notes that after several years of assuming
risk in the procurement of munitions, the current level of
munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the
Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at
the maximum production capacity. However, there are several
munitions that are not funded at maximum capacity within the
budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0
million in line number 5 of WPN for an additional 58 missiles.
This increases procurement to the maximum capacity for
Sidewinder. This was on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded
priorities list.

Long range anti-ship missile

The budget request included $81.2 million in line number 17
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the long range anti-
ship missile.
The committee notes that after several years of assuming
risk in the procurement of munitions, the current level of
munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the
Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at
the maximum production capacity. However, there are several
munitions that are not funded at maximum capacity within the
budget request. The long range anti-ship missile is a highly-
capable system that is critical for the warfight.
The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in
line number 17 of WPN for an additional 10 missiles. This
increases procurement to the maximum capacity for the long
range anti-ship missile. This was on the Chief of Naval
Operations' unfunded priorities list.

Harpoon block II

The budget request included $14.8 million in line number 20
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Harpoon missile.
The committee notes that after several years of assuming
risk in the procurement of munitions the current level of
munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the
Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at
the maximum production capacity. However, there are several
munitions that are not funded at maximum capacity within the
budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in
line number 20 of WPN for an additional 48 missiles. This
increases procurement to the maximum capacity for the Harpoon
block II and accelerates meeting total requirement in fiscal
year 2020 instead of 2021. This was on the Chief of Naval
Operations' unfunded priorities list.

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile

The budget request included $188.0 million in line number
21 in Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for Harm Mods.
The committee notes that the Navy is currently in full rate
production for the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
(AARGM) and requested to purchase 257 missiles in fiscal year
2019. The committee also notes that the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) recently stated that the AARGM
Block I was ``not adequate to support an evaluation of
operational effectiveness or survivability.'' Furthermore,
DOT&E stated that the AARGM Block I ``provides limited
employment capability against advanced threat surface-to-air
radar systems.'' Given the directive by new National Defense
Strategy to prioritize competition against near-peer
adversaries, the committee believes that the Navy must re-
evaluate the AARGM program of record. The committee believes
the Navy should seek a solution that will be operationally
effective against advanced threats surface-to-air radar systems
and deprioritize investments on programs that are not.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $113.9
million in line number 21 in WPN, which reduces the quantity by
200 missiles.

MK48 torpedoes

The budget request included $92.6 million in line number 27
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the MK-48 torpedo.
The committee notes that after several years of assuming
risk in the procurement of munitions, the current level of
munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the
Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at
the maximum production capacity. However, there are several
munitions that are not funded at maximum capacity within the
budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in
line number 27 of WPN for an additional five torpedoes. This
increases procurement to the maximum capacity for the MK-48.
This was on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities
list.

LCS module weapons

The budget request included $11.4 million in line number 39
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for procurement of Littoral
Combat Ship module weapons, including 90 Longbow Hellfire
missiles.
The committee notes the Navy, which has procured 134
Longbow Hellfire Missiles for the surface-to-surface missile
module (SSMM) program in previous years, plans to complete
developmental testing, initial operational test and evaluation,
and declare initial operational capability in fiscal year 2019.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0
million to reduce missile quantities until operational testing
is completed.

Advanced low-cost munitions ordnance

The budget request included $33.6 million in line number 10
of Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps (PANMC), of
which $19.5 million was for the procurement of the advanced
low-cost munitions ordnance (ALAMO) rounds.
The committee believes the request to purchase 1,500 rounds
is ahead of need as testing has not been complete.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.0
million in line number 10 of PANMC to reduce the procurement of
ALAMO by 1,000 rounds. The remaining 500 rounds should be used
to complete operational testing.

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement

The budget request included $2.8 billion in line number 5
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class
submarine advance procurement.
The committee recommends an additional $250.0 million for
the Secretary of the Navy to use for: (1) Economic order
quantity for the fiscal year 2019 through 2023 multiyear
Virginia-class submarine procurement, which may include the
addition of a third submarine in both fiscal years 2022 and
2023; or (2) To expand second and third tier contractors in the
submarine industrial base to support planned increased
production requirements.
If the Secretary pursues option (2), consistent with the
statement of managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), the
Secretary shall notify the congressional defense committees
within 30 days of obligating funds for such purpose of the
obligation date, contractor name or names, location,
description of the shortfall to be addressed, actions to be
undertaken, desired end state, usable end items to be procured,
period of performance, dollar amount, projected associated
savings including business case analysis if applicable,
contract name, and contract number.
The committee believes that utilizing economic order
quantity procurement, procuring additional submarines, and
expanding the capabilities of the supplier base should lead to
greater cost savings and improved efficiency as production
increases to meet the Columbia-class schedule and higher
requirement for attack submarines in the Navy's latest Force
Structure Assessment.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $250.0
million in line number 5 of SCN for Virginia-class submarine
advance procurement.

DDG-1000

The budget request included $271.0 million in line number 8
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of
the DDG-1000 program.
The committee notes these funds are requested as subsequent
year full funding. The committee is unaware of incremental
funding authority for this program in fiscal year 2019.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $271.0
million in line number 8 of SCN and transfer of these funds to
line number 28 for completion of the prior year shipbuilding
program.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

The budget request included $5.3 billion in line number 9
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer procurement.
The committee notes the budget request includes procurement
of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which is one
additional destroyer in fiscal year 2019 as compared to last
year's request. The committee further notes the unit costs of
the fiscal year 2019 destroyers slightly increased. The
committee believes a higher procurement rate should decrease
unit costs.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.5
million in line number 9 of SCN.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement

The budget request included $391.9 million in line number
10 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh
Burke-class destroyer advance procurement.
The committee notes the Navy future years defense program
includes procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in
fiscal year 2020, which would be procured using a multiyear
procurement contract. The committee understands that advance
procurement of long lead time material could reduce component
costs and enable optimal ship construction intervals.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $250.0
million in line number 10 of SCN.

Littoral Combat Ship

The budget request included $749.2 million in line number
11 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement
of one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
The committee notes the one LCS requested in fiscal year
2019 is the last ship of the class. Accordingly, the committee
recommends adjusting the plans and other cost categories to
align with the end of production.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $70.0
million in line number 11 of SCN. Additionally, the committee
requests the Secretary of the Navy establish a separate SCN
line number for the Frigate (FFG(X)) in the fiscal year 2020
budget request.

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement

The budget request included no funding in line number 12 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement or
advance procurement of LPD-class amphibious transport ships.
The committee notes the Navy has identified LPD-30, which
was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as the
first Flight II LPD. The committee believes sufficient design
maturity and cost estimate precision have been achieved to
award a multiyear procurement contract for Flight II LPD-class
ships, which will be procured in fiscal years 2020 through
2024.
The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Navy
and Commandant of the Marine Corps testified on April 19, 2018,
before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate that they
support the addition of the Vertical Launch System to Flight II
LPD-class ships. The committee believes this increased
capability merits serious consideration, including the
applicable concepts of operation, requirements, and ship design
changes.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0
million in line number 12 of SCN for advance procurement for
Flight II LPD-class ships, which the Secretary of the Navy may
use for: (1) Economic order quantity procurement associated
with a multiyear procurement contract or contracts awarded
pursuant to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code; and/
or (2) Advance procurement of the amphibious transport ship
designated LPD-31.

Outfitting

The budget request included $634.0 million in line number
21 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting.
Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes post-
delivery funding is early to need for CVN-79, DDG-1002, and
SSN-793. The committee also notes unjustified outfitting cost
growth for LCS-11, LCS-13, LCS-14, LCS-15, LCS-16, LCS-17, LCS-
18, LCS-19, LCS-20, LCS-22, DDG-119, and DDG-121.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $72.0
million in line number 21 of SCN.

Service craft

The budget request included $72.1 million in line number 23
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for service craft.
The committee understands the current Navy Surface Warfare
Officer (SWO) candidate training curriculum is comprised of
primarily classroom and simulator training methods. The
committee believes SWO candidates lack sufficient at-sea
training before reporting to their first ships. The committee
is concerned that the lack of practical at-sea experience
before reporting to their first ships may result in SWOs having
gaps in their foundational safety, seamanship, and navigation
knowledge, skills, and experience. The committee has previously
encouraged the Navy to utilize Navy Yard Patrol (YP) craft for
SWO candidate training in the Senate report accompanying S.
2943 (S. Rept. 114-255) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). Additionally,
the 2017 Comprehensive Review of Surface Force Incidents
directed an evaluation of the use of YP craft in all officer
accession programs, including the feasibility of expanding YP
craft use.
Since at least 1975, YP craft have been used by the Navy to
train naval officer candidates. Currently, the Navy maintains
24 YP craft, based in Annapolis, Maryland, to provide
realistic, at-sea training in basic to advanced navigation and
seamanship. Of these 24 craft, Navy officials have stated six
YP 676 class craft are slated for near-term disposal, 12 YP 676
class craft are only able to conduct local operations, and six
YP 703 class craft can conduct out-of-area training with a
range of 1,680 nautical miles and 40 personnel embarked.
The Navy conducts annual Atlantic Patrol summer training
cruises, known as LANTPAT, with the six YP 703 class craft,
which provide four-week cruises for approximately 400 Naval
Academy midshipmen and international students with port visits
in locations such as New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
The Navy plans to expand this effort by having 80 Naval Reserve
Officer Training Corps midshipmen take part in LANTPAT cruises
in both 2018 and 2019. The committee understands that, if
additional craft were available, potentially all of the
approximately 260 NROTC midshipmen who will become SWOs could
take part in a LANTPAT cruise. The additional craft could also
increase LANTPAT participation of Naval Academy midshipmen, as
well as new SWO candidate graduates of the Officer Candidate
School.
In order to increase LANTPAT training opportunities for SWO
candidates from all accession sources as soon as possible, the
committee believes that, at a minimum, the Navy should replace
the six YP 676 class craft slated for disposal with new YP 703
craft that incorporate modernization, training, and
habitability improvements derived from lessons learned with
existing YP 703 craft.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to release a
request for proposals for the detail design and construction of
upgraded YP 703 class craft not later than fiscal year 2019,
with an award for the first such craft not later than fiscal
year 2020. Based on YP 703 class craft actual procurement
costs, the committee believes the design, non-recurring
engineering, government support, and construction costs for the
first upgraded YP 703 class craft should not exceed $25.0
million.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in line number 23 of SCN.

Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs

The budget request included $207.1 million in line number
28 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for completion
of prior year shipbuilding programs.
The committee notes $271.0 million are requested in line
number 8 as subsequent year full funding for the DDG-1000
program. The committee is unaware of incremental funding
authority for this program in fiscal year 2019.
The committee further notes the budget request in line
number 28 funds completion of prior year shipbuilding programs,
including cost overruns for seven Littoral Combat Ships, three
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, three Ship to Shore Connectors,
CVN-78, and LHA-7.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $271.0
million in line number 28 of SCN and the transfer of these
funds from line number 8.

Cable ship

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for a cable ship.
The committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million in
line number 29 of SCN for procurement of one cable ship and
directs the Secretary of the Navy to utilize an existing United
States or foreign design, with modifications he deems
necessary, to maximize affordability and expedite delivery.

Other navigation equipment

The budget request included $63.3 million in line number 4
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of other
navigation equipment.
The committee notes the 2017 Comprehensive Review of
Surface Force Incidents recommended accelerating the transition
to Electronic Chart Display and Information System--Navy
(ECDIS-N) versions 9.4 and greater on all ships.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in line number 4 of OPN to accelerate the installation
of ECDIS-N upgrades.

DDG-1000 class support equipment

The budget request included $89.7 million in line number 16
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of DDG-1000
class support equipment.
The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 request increased
$38.4 million above last year's planned request for fiscal year
2019 of $51.3 million. The committee further notes the Navy
attributes this $38.4 million increase to funding activities
that overlap with those funded in the DDG-1000 research and
development program element (PE 0204202N), which increased
$40.8 million above last year's planned request for fiscal year
2019.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $38.4
million in line number 16 of OPN.

Items less than $5 million

The budget request included $126.9 million in line number
22 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of items
less than $5.0 million.
The committee notes this funding includes $32.9 million for
CVN-78 in-service requirements. However, the committee lacks
sufficient budget justification (e.g., P-3a exhibit) to support
this request.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0
million in line number 22 of OPN and requests the Navy
consolidate Ford-class OPN requests in a new line number.

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules

The budget request included $124.1 million in line number
32 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission
modules.
The committee notes $19.3 million in line number 52 would
procure Knifefish and Unmanned Influence Sweep System training
assets for LCS mine countermeasures mission modules.
The committee further notes $8.6 million in line number 53
would procure a Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis
airborne mine countermeasures system block one training asset
for LCS mine countermeasures mission modules.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.9
million and discontinuing use of line numbers 52 and 53 of OPN
for procurement of systems associated with LCS mine
countermeasures mission modules.

LCS anti-submarine warfare mission modules

The budget request included $57.3 million in line number 33
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) anti-submarine warfare mission modules.
The committee recommends procuring one Escort Mission
Module (EMM) in fiscal year 2019 and delaying procurement at a
rate of two EMMs per year until operational testing is
completed for both LCS variants, which is planned for fiscal
year 2020.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $18.0
million in line number 33 of OPN.

LCS surface warfare mission modules

The budget request included $26.0 million in line number 34
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) surface warfare mission modules.
The committee notes the surface-to-surface missile module
(SSMM) program plans to complete developmental testing, initial
operational test and evaluation, declare initial operational
capability (IOC), and procure 2 additional SSMMs in fiscal year
2019.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.5
million in line number 34 of OPN to limit procurement to a
single SSMM until IOC is declared.

Surface ship torpedo defense

The budget request included $11.3 million in line number 42
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for surface ship torpedo
defense programs.
The committee notes a delay in the AN/SLQ-25E contract
award.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million in line number 42 of OPN.
Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination
of the Torpedo Warning System (TWS), which addressed a critical
capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019,
the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide
the congressional defense committees with a report on the
specific capability gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly
fielded to address, the performance of the TWS in addressing
such gap or gaps, the warfighting risk that will be accepted
without the TWS deployed, and the Navy's plans to address the
specific capability gap or gaps without the TWS deployed.

Cooperative Engagement Capability

The budget request included $44.2 million in line number 48
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of
Cooperative Engagement Capability.
The committee notes Common Array Block pre-production unit
schedule delays.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0
million in line number 48 of OPN.

Minesweeping system replacement

The budget request included $35.7 million in line number 52
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of
minesweeping replacement systems.
The committee notes $19.3 million of this funding would
procure Knifefish and Unmanned Influence Sweep System training
assets for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures
mission modules.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.3
million in line number 52 of OPN, transfer of these funds to
line number 32, and discontinuing use of line number 52 for
procurement of systems associated with LCS mine countermeasures
mission modules.

Shallow water mine countermeasures

The budget request included $8.6 million in line number 53
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of shallow
water mine countermeasures systems.
The committee notes this funding would procure a Coastal
Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis airborne mine
countermeasures system block one training asset for Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission modules.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.6
million in line number 53 of OPN, transfer of these funds to
line number 32, and discontinuing use of line number 53 for
procurement of systems associated with LCS mine countermeasures
mission modules.

Next Generation Surface Search Radar

The budget request included $148.4 million in line number
71 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of items
less than $5.0 million.
The committee notes $58.4 million of this request would
fund the Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) program,
including non-recurring engineering, procurement of 43 units,
and installation. The committee further notes installations are
scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.4
million in line number 71 of OPN due to installation funding
ahead of need. Additionally, while recognizing fielding NGSSR
is a priority for the Navy, the committee is concerned by the
cost and schedule risk posed by the concurrent nature of the
acquisition strategy, specifically concurrent NGSSR
engineering, testing, shipboard integration, and procurement of
43 NGSSRs in fiscal year 2019.
Additionally, the committee understands that NGSSR will be
the primary navigation radar replacement. The committee
believes the NGSSR should include the capability to record and
retain radar data for investigative and other purposes.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
not later than October 1, 2018, on the capability of surface
navigation radars to record and retain radar data for
investigative and other purposes. This report shall include:
(1) The current capability and capacity of surface navigation
radars (e.g., AN/SPS-73) to record and retain radar data; (2)
The current methods used by the Navy to reconstruct surface
navigation radar data for investigative and other purposes; (3)
The planned NGSSR capability and capacity to record and retain
radar data; and (4) Once the NGSSR is fielded, the methods
planned to be used by the Navy to reconstruct surface
navigation radar data for investigative and other purposes.

Cryptologic communications equipment

The budget request included $14.2 million in line number 82
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of
cryptologic communications equipment.
The committee notes that U.S. Southern Command identified
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded
priority with a specific need for increased cryptologic carry-
on collection capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8
million in line number 82 of OPN.

Sonobuoys

The budget request included $199.0 million in line number
88 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
sonobuoys.
The committee notes greater than expected sonobuoy
expenditures in fiscal year 2018 resulted in the Chief of Naval
Operations requesting procurement of additional sonobuoys as a
fiscal year 2019 unfunded priority.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $36.0
million in line number 88 of OPN.

Navy port waterborne security barriers

The budget request included $175.4 million in line number
129 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
physical security equipment.
The committee notes the former Commander of Navy
Installations Command, Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, testified
before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on April
5, 2016, that current Navy maritime security barriers do ``not
meet the requirement for high-speed boats that could be used
for a terrorist attack.''
Furthermore, the committee is aware of significant
performance shortfalls of the current maritime security
barriers that continue to result in unacceptable anti-terrorism
and force protection gaps in at least one location.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not set
requirements, requested funding, or released a request for
proposals to procure new Navy port waterborne security
barriers.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Navy to expeditiously
set requirements, request funding, and release a request for
proposals with full and open competition for new Navy port
waterborne security barriers.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in line number 129 of OPN.

Amphibious Assault Vehicle Survivability Upgrade

The budget request included $156.2 million in line number 1
of Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of
Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) Survivability Upgrade Program
(SUP) armored vehicles.
The committee understands that the AAV SUP will produce
marginal improvements in the vehicle's overall survivability
and that few of the proposed enhancements address threats the
vehicle may face in conflict against a peer adversary. The AAV
is a decades-old platform with legacy amphibious and combat
capabilities that do not meet the needs of modern Marine
amphibious forcible entry operations. Rather than continue to
invest in a vehicle that, even in upgraded form, will not
provide adequate maneuverability, survivability or ship-to-
shore performance the committee believes these funds would be
better used elsewhere to support modernization initiatives
across the force.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $78.1
million in line number 1 of PMC.

Command post systems

The budget request included $124.8 million in line number
32 of Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of
command post systems.
The committee notes that the majority of this budget line
is dedicated to procuring Networking On The Move (NOTM) systems
for air and ground platforms. The NOTM system represents one
method to achieve long range data and voice communications,
however it has operational performance issues and is not
considered a Low Probability of Detection or Low Probability of
Intercept system.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0
million in line number 32 of PMC.

Training devices

The budget request included $52.0 million in line number 48
of Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of
training devices.
This budget line includes funding for training devices and
simulators for obsolete equipment to include the Amphibious
Assault Vehicle, Light Armored Vehicle, M16A2, M249 SAW, MP5,
M240G, Mk-153 SMAW, and other systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.4
million in line number 48 of PMC.

Air Force

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter

The budget request included $4.3 billion in line number 1
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of
48 F-35A aircraft.
The committee supports the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and
delivery of its unique capabilities to our warfighters as
quickly as reasonably possible. However, the committee remains
concerned with the state of the F-35 sustainment enterprise and
its ability to bear the rapidly increasing demands upon it
efficiently and affordably. The committee believes the
enterprise is behind, particularly in regards to spare parts
and depot component repair capacity. If the program does not
allow the sustainment enterprise to catch up to the currently
fielded and soon to be fielded aircraft, sustainment capability
will continue to fall farther and further behind its needed
capability and capacity, which will ultimately reduce the
number of aircraft the Department of Defense is able to
procure, sustain, and upgrade.
The committee believes it is prudent to establish a solid
sustainment base before the steep ramp of production aircraft
overwhelms the enterprise's ability to sustain them. Elsewhere
in this legislation, the committee seeks to increase funding
for F-35 spares, modifications, and depot repair capability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million for depot repair capability standup and a decrease of
$92.5 million, or one aircraft, for a total decrease of $67.5
million in line number 1 of APAF.

OA-X light attack aircraft

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the acquisition of a fleet
of light attack aircraft.
The recently published National Defense Strategy (NDS)
clearly states the need to conduct operations in permissive
environments with lower-cost platforms and concepts of
operations than is being done currently, both to be more
fiscally efficient and to free our more capable, multi-role
aircraft assets to focus on rebuilding readiness and deterring
peer competitors. The NDS additionally places a strong emphasis
on the need to enhance partnerships with our allies throughout
the world. The committee strongly believes that a light attack
fleet is ideally suited to meet both of these strategic
demands.
The committee has been encouraged by the Air Force's moves
towards pursuing the acquisition of a fleet of light attack
aircraft, including a $2.4 billion wedge in the out years of
the future years defense program. However, the committee
believes that the Air Force continues to move slower than is
warranted or than the speed at which senior leadership
proclaims they want to move.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $350.0
million in APAF, line number 18, for the acquisition of light
attack aircraft and their associated long lead material.

KC-46A Pegasus

The budget request included $2.6 billion in line number 4
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of
15 KC-46 tanker aircraft.
The committee remains supportive of the KC-46 tanker but
continues to be frustrated by the repeated delays to achieving
required certification and unforeseen technical challenges that
continue to plague the program. Over the seven years since the
program contract was awarded in February 2011, key schedule
dates have slipped later and later, in some cases more than
three years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
published a report on April 18, 2018, KC-46 Modernization:
Program Cost is Stable, but Schedule May Be Further Delayed,''
which states that ``the program updated its delivery schedule
in 2017 to allow Boeing to delay delivery of the first 18 fully
capable aircraft from August 2017 to October 2018 / 14 months.
A schedule risk assessment, as well as GAO's analysis, however
projects that deliveries could slip to May 2019, 21 months from
the original schedule, if risks are not mitigated.'' With
military certification testing, receiver certification, and
resolution of Category 1 discrepancies still to be completed,
the committee remains unconvinced that there will not be
further delays to the program.
While attention has been focused on the delivery of the
first aircraft, the committee notes that first delivery is
simply the first step to bringing capability to the warfighter.
Successful completion of full receiver aircraft certification,
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, delivery of the
required assets available (to include wing air refueling pod
sets), and a positive full rate production decision will be the
true guideposts.
Additionally, while the committee understands the need to
be flexible as a program encounters delays, the committee is
disappointed the Air Force has, on more than one occasion,
changed the criteria the contractor needs to meet before first
delivery. The committee expects the Air Force to hold the
contractor to the contracted agreements, and should the
contract be breached, pursue appropriate consideration.
Meanwhile, production of aircraft continues apace, with
nearly 40 aircraft in some phase of production or modification.
As the April 18, 2018, GAO report notes, ``Based on the updated
schedule, Boeing will be producing 49 aircraft, or about 27
percent of the total aircraft the Air Force will buy, before
developmental testing is complete.'' While the contractor is
responsible for paying for any required modifications, the
concurrency of production and development will impact
delivering capability to the Air Force.
Additionally, the Government Accountability Office
identified $102.7 million of funding for KC-46 interim
contractor support that is early to need.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $145.2
million, or one KC-46 aircraft, and $102.7 million for interim
contractor support for a total decrease of $247.9 million in
line number 4 of APAF.

MQ-9

The budget request included $221.7 million in line number
17 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement
of 29 MQ-9 aircraft.
The committee understands the Air Force is moving toward
establishing an Advanced Battle Management System concept. As
part of this effort, the Air Force intends to emplace a Ground
Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capability on a number of its
MQ-9 Reaper fleet to provide GMTI in low-threat areas. The
committee is supportive of providing more capabilities to its
MQ-9 fleet and of executing operations in permissive
environments in a more fiscally efficient manner.
However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force's
plan to use MQ-9s for GMTI missions without increasing capacity
will overtask an already heavily utilized asset.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $120.0
million in line 17 of APAF for six additional MQ-9 aircraft in
order to accelerate the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management
System.

B-52

The budget request included $105.5 million in line number
21 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for B-52
modifications.
The Air Force has requested a transfer of $14.8 million
from this line to Research, Development, Test & Evaluation
(RDT&E), Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.8
million in line number 21 of APAF.

Long range anti-ship missile certification on the B-52

The budget request included $105.5 million in line number
21 in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for B-52.
The B-52 will be certified to carry the Joint Air-to-
Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER). The long
range anti-ship missile (LRASM) has the same physical
configuration as the JASSM-ER. The Air Force is procuring 50
LRASMs. Currently, the LRASM is certified to be carried on the
B-1. However, given the Air Force plans to eventually retire
the B-1, and the critical capability and expensive nature of
the LRASM, the committee requires the Air Force certify the B-
52 to carry the LRASM.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in line number 21 in APAF to certify the LRASM on the
B-52.

A-10 replacement wing program

The budget request included $109.1 million in line number
23 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications
to the A-10 aircraft, including $79.2 million for the wing
replacement program.
The committee recommends an increase of $65.0 million in
line number 23 of APAF for the A-10 wing replacement program.

F-35A modifications

The budget request included $247.3 million in line number
29 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement
of modifications to F-35A aircraft.
The committee supports upgrading as many F-35s as possible
to the most advanced configuration in order to, most
importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but
also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining
multiple configurations of three different aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million in line number 29 of APAF for F-35A modifications.

C-130 propulsion upgrade

The budget request included $22.1 million in line number 50
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications to
the legacy C-130 and Special Mission C-130 aircraft.
The committee notes that the budget request did not include
any funding for the C-130H T56 Series 3.5 Engine Enhancement
Packages (EEPs) in this or any other line.
The committee has been encouraged by the results of the Air
Force's testing of the T56 Series 3.5 engine upgrade and the
resulting performance and fuel efficiency gains it brings.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $74.0
million in line number 50 of APAF for C-130H T56 Series 3.5
EEPs.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

The budget request included $22.9 million in line number 59
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications to
the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS).
The committee understands the Air Force is seeking to
retire three JSTARS aircraft in fiscal year 2019, forgo
recapitalizing the JSTARS fleet, and move towards an Advanced
Battle Management System (ABMS). The committee supports the Air
Force's move toward establishing advanced capabilities and
concepts of operations to enhance effectiveness in any
potential conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary.
However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force is
divesting proven capability before its planned replacement is
matured, let alone fielded. The committee is particularly
concerned that the Air Force's plan to divest the JSTARS fleet
by the mid-2020s will leave a significant capability gap in the
mid- to late-2020s should implementation of ABMS be delayed or
prove unfeasible.
The committee believes the JSTARS aircraft remains a
critical capability for our warfighters in the near- to mid-
term. In order to ensure its relevance and effectiveness as an
interim capability as the Air Force transitions to an ABMS,
JSTARS requires upgrades, including to its central computer.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in line 59 of APAF for JSTARS central computer upgrade
design.

F-35A spares and repair parts

The budget request included $956.4 million in line number
70 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement
of aircraft spares and repair parts.
The committee remains concerned by the readiness rates of
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A particularly concerning trend
is the increase in the percentage of aircraft unable to fly
while awaiting replacement parts due to inadequate supply
support, known as the Not Mission Capable--Supply (NMC-S) rate.
As the Office of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) notes in the January 2018, DOT&E annual
report, ``Concurrency of production and development, lower-
than-expected reliability for parts, inadequate fault
isolation, and early program decisions to not adequately fund
procurement of spares have contributed to the NMC-S rate.''
Given this situation, which will be exacerbated as
production ramps up steeply in the coming years, the committee
is perplexed by the Services' combined decrease of $546.4
million for F-35 spares between fiscal years 2020 and 2022.
While the Department of Defense claims the cuts are due to
``process improvements by Services to meet Departmental
readiness efficiency goals in military spending,'' the
committee is unaware of any such process improvements that
would resolve a NMC-S rate that is nearly double the goal, let
alone that would warrant cutting more than a half billion
dollars in spare parts. Should such process improvements exist,
the committee strongly urges the Services to share them, as
they would clearly bring immense benefit to the entire
Department.
The committee believes the F-35 program urgently needs to
increase the supply of spare parts. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $50.0 million in line number 70 of
APAF for F-35A spares and repair parts.

Air Force long range anti-ship missile

The budget request included $44.2 million in line number 3
of Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for the long range
anti-ship missile.
The committee notes that, after several years of assuming
risk in the procurement of munitions, the current level of
munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this
problem, the Department of Defense has requested funding for
many munitions at the maximum production capacity. However,
there are several munitions that are not funded at maximum
capacity within the budget request. The long range anti-ship
missile is a highly capable system that is critical for
achieving the goals set forth in the National Defense Strategy.
However, the Air Force budget request reduced the quantity of
this critical munition for fiscal year 2019 from 15 to 12. The
Air Force intends to complete the procurement of this missile
in fiscal year 2019 terminating the program with a total
procurement of 47 missiles. However, the total requirement of
the long range anti-ship missile for the Air Force is 50
missiles.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.2
million in line number 3 of MPAF for an additional three
missiles. This increases procurement to the maximum capacity
for the long range anti-ship missile and achieves the Air
Force's requirement of 50 munitions. In addition, given the
critical nature of this missile, the committee believes that 50
missiles is insufficient. The Air Force shall re-examine the
total program requirement of the long range anti-ship missile
in light of the advancing capabilities of near-peer
adversaries.

Small Diameter Bomb II

The budget request included $100.9 million in line number 8
in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for Small Diameter
Bomb II.
The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 million in line
number 8 in MPAF to realign unit price to $104,000 per weapon.

Cargo and utility vehicles

The budget request included $42.7 million in line number 4
for Cargo and Utility Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force
(OPAF).
As part of its strategic approach for addressing long-term
strategic competition with China and Russia, the National
Defense Strategy (NDS) calls for building a more lethal force,
including investments in forward force maneuver, posture
resilience, and resilient and agile logistics. According to the
NDS, the objectives of these investments are to ensure that
U.S. forces can ``deploy, survive, operate, maneuver, and
regenerate in all domains while under attack'' and conduct
``logistics sustainment while under persistent multi-domain
attack.'' Meeting these objectives will require a transition
``from large, centralized, unhardened infrastructure to
smaller, dispersed, resilient, adaptive basing that include
active and passive defenses'' as well as an emphasis on
``prepositioned forward stocks and munitions, strategic
mobility assets,'' and ``distributed logistics and
maintenance.''
Consistent with the priorities set forth in the National
Defense Strategy, the committee has fully supported resiliency
efforts such as the prepositioning of European Contingency Air
Operations Sets Deployable Airbase Systems (DABS), which is
part of the European Deterrence Initiative, to complement and
enhance the theater-wide response capability of the U.S. Air
Force in Europe.
However, the committee is concerned that the appropriate
level of investment in similar resiliency efforts in the Indo-
Pacific region has not materialized. U.S. force posture in the
Indo-Pacific region remains heavily concentrated in Northeast
Asia within range of China's advanced arsenal of ballistic and
cruise missiles, posing a significant risk to forward-stationed
forces, to the ability of the Joint Force to execute the
contingency plans of the Department of Defense, and to the
credibility of U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.
As a result, Admiral Harry Harris, Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM), identified force posture initiatives focused
on resiliency as critical requirements in his letter to the
committee of February 22, 2018, concerning PACOM's unfunded
priority list and in his testimony to the committee on March
15, 2018.
Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of seven
DABS in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned forward in the
PACOM area of responsibility in order to support the priorities
of the National Defense Strategy and PACOM's ``resiliency'' and
``agile logistics'' force posture initiatives as well as to
enhance the credible combat power of U.S. forces in the Indo-
Pacific region.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.2
million in line number 4 for Cargo and Utility Vehicles in
OPAF.

Security and tactical vehicles

The budget request included $1.2 million in line number 6
for Security and Tactical Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air
Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $2.7
million in line number 6 for Security and Tactical Vehicles in
OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Special purpose vehicles

The budget request included $43.0 million in line number 7
for Special Purpose Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force
(OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million
in line number 7 for Special Purpose Vehicles in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Fire fighting/crash rescue vehicles

The budget request included $23.3 million in line number 8
for Fire Fighting/Crash Rescue Vehicles in Other Procurement,
Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million in line number 8 for Fire Fighting/Crash Rescue
Vehicles in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Materials handling vehicles

The budget request included $11.5 million in line number 9
for Materials Handling Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force
(OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $19.8 million
in line number 9 for Materials Handling Vehicles in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Runway snow removal and cleaning equipment

The budget request included $37.6 million in line number 10
for Runway Snow Removal and Cleaning Equipment in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an
increase of $2.8 million in line number 10 for Runway Snow
Removal and Cleaning Equipment in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Air Force physical security system

The budget request included $159.3 million in line number
29 for Air Force Physical Security System in Other Procurement,
Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in line number 29 for Air Force Physical Security
System in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Base maintenance and support equipment

The budget request included $24.0 million in line number 56
for Base Maintenance and Support Equipment in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an
increase of $24.0 million in line number 56 for Base
Maintenance and Support Equipment in OPAF.
This increase would support the procurement of seven
Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report.

Defense Wide

Joint Service Provider

The budget request included $107.2 million in line number
16 of Joint Service Provider, Defense Information Systems
Agency.
The committee notes that the budget request represents
significant growth from prior years, and that the Department of
Defense has set up a Reform Management Group specifically
focused on reducing costs in the shared services information
technology area.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5
million in line number 16 of Joint Service Provider, Defense
Information Systems Agency.

Items of Special Interest

Aircraft carrier acquisition

The Department of Defense has been able to achieve program
efficiencies and cost-savings by using multiyear and block buy
contracting with many weapons programs, to include
shipbuilding. Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code,
sets forth criteria for requesting and evaluating multiyear
contracting proposals. Although similar criteria for block buy
authorities are not codified, the committee expects the
Department to conduct rigorous analysis of proposals and
provide that analysis to the Congress, and that the
Department's analysis will show a sound business case with
substantial savings from committing the government to a longer
term contract.
Earlier this year, the Navy issued a request for proposal
soliciting information on a potential block buy to acquire two
Ford-class aircraft carriers (CVN-80 and CVN-81). The committee
will review any information that the Navy provides related to
such an approach as consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 continues.

Army M4 Carbine Forward Extended Rails

In fiscal year 2018, the committee directed the Army to
evaluate the need for upgrading the M4 Carbine legacy rail with
the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) free-float extended
rails. In response, the Army conducted a Solider Enhancement
Program (SEP) evaluation and published the results in December
2017. The Limited User Evaluation (LUE) demonstrated promising
results as compared to the Army's legacy rail. While the
committee supports the Army's modernization strategy that calls
for developing and fielding the Next Generation Squad Automatic
Weapon (NGSAW) before developing and fielding the Next
Generation Soldier Weapon (NGSW), the committee remains
concerned that the Army is not planning to make modest upgrades
to the M4 Carbine until the NGSAW and NGSW can be fielded. The
committee is aware that soldier demand remains high for free-
float, extended rails, and the Army has included funding for
free-float extended rails from fiscal year 2021 through fiscal
year 2023. The committee recommends the Army assess the cost-
effectiveness and efficiency of accelerating the free-float
extended rail program to retrofit the M4A1 rifle as part of a
bridging strategy until the NGSAW and NGSW is fielded.

Avoiding future work stoppages on EC-130H Compass Call Recapitalization

The committee supports the Air Force's efforts to
recapitalize the aging EC-130H Compass Call fleet with the EC-
37 type aircraft. The committee notes that before it can carry
on with the transition plan, the Department of Defense must
first comply with the related provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91). While the committee notes that
Department has submitted the certification required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91), delays in satisfying the requirement has led to a
work stoppage on the program lasting at least six weeks. The
committee is concerned about the potential for further work
stoppages should the Secretary of the Air Force fail to make a
timely determination that the EC-37B has a high likelihood of
meeting combatant requirements, as required by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328). The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force
to make a timely determination for this requirement to avoid
further program delays and cost overruns.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, not more than 60 days after the determination required
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) is made, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the Compass Call transition
plan. This plan should include:
(1) Courses of action to accelerate the
recapitalization of the EC-130H fleet and Baseline 4
development and deployment for incoming EC-37 aircraft;
(a) attendant timelines for each course of
action;
(b) cost estimates for each course of action;
and
(2) Recommended course of action and a plan to manage
both fleets while supporting combatant commander
requirements.

B-2 modernization programs

The committee is aware that, as noted in the Department of
Defense's fiscal year 2018 budget request, ``modern
communications are key enablers for the B-2 in the anti-access/
area denial battlespace and directly enhance lethality and
force multiplication.'' The committee notes that the Department
did not request any funding in its fiscal year 2019 budget for
the B-2 Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite
Communications program and has not proposed an alternative
secure communications solution to replace the current
communications suite.
The B-2 is currently the only stealth, long-range,
penetrating bomber in the Air Force inventory. While the
committee fully supports the recapitalization of the bomber
fleet with at least 100 next-generation B-21 bombers, the
committee is concerned about capability and capacity gaps in
the near-to-mid-term.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 28, 2019, on potential line-of-sight and
beyond line-of-sight communications upgrades for the B-2 that
would provide the capabilities required for the B-2 to perform
its critical strike missions in anti-access/area denial
environments.
Additionally, the report should consider solutions that
would enable automated transfer of data to the B-2 and enable
the aircraft to operate in a networked fashion with other
elements of the long-range strike family of systems and other
Air Force and Joint systems. The report should provide
estimated modernization costs and timelines, consider
opportunities to exploit capabilities developed for other
programs, and take into account timelines for introduction of
future systems that will provide similar capabilities.

B-52 re-engining

The committee recognizes the value and mission capabilities
of the B-52 and supports platform modernization, specifically
the effort to re-engine the fleet. The committee further
recognizes the advances in engine performance and efficiency
since the B-52's current TF-33 engines were fielded.
Accordingly, the committee supports efforts to accelerate
fielding of the B-52 engine replacement in order to maximize
the benefits of increased efficiency over the B-52's remaining
life.

Briefing on tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition plans

The committee notes the decreased funding profile for the
Army's Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle program (FMTV), the
Palletized Load System Extended Service Program (PLS ESP), and
the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Extended Service
Program (HEMTT ESP) over the future years defense program
(FYDP). Predictable funding helps support minimum sustaining
rates, and it avoids production breaks. In turn, this benefits
Army readiness and modernization plans.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to brief the committee not later than September 30, 2018, on
the Army's procurement strategy for the FMTV program as well as
the programs for HEMTT ESP and PLS ESP. The briefing should
address how the proposed funding strategies are likely to
impact the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base,
modernization and readiness goals, as well as surge capacity
and future acquisition needs.

CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement

The Navy's MH-53E helicopter's primary mission of providing
airborne mine countermeasures is more important than ever, as
the Navy faces an ever increasing number of threats across the
maritime domain today, including anti-ship mines that are
widespread, deadly, and difficult to locate.
Since the committee has been concerned about maintaining
mine countermeasures capability, the committee has recommended
legislation that has continued to delay the retirements of the
MCM-1 mine countermeasures ships and the MH-53E helicopters
until the Secretary of the Navy can identify a replacement
capability and the necessary quantity of such systems that will
meet all combatant commander mine countermeasures operational
requirements.
In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate
Armed Services Committee in March 2018 on Navy and Marine Corps
Aviation Programs, Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, USN, stated,
``The MH-53E will continue to perform its primary mission of
airborne mine countermeasures as well as transport of cargo and
personnel until it is replaced by the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS).''
With a reduction in the inventory objective for LCSs
subsequent to the Navy's announcement of the Force Structure
Assessment recommending a 355-ship Navy, the Committee is
concerned about a capability gap for mine countermeasures
missions. The Committee requests the Navy submit a report not
later than 90 days following the date of enactment of this Act
on the feasibility and impact of recapitalizing the MH-53E
fleet with a derivative of CH-53K that would address its use in
airborne mine countermeasures missions and additional missions
of conducting vertical onboard delivery and transporting
personnel and cargo. The Committee recognizes that the CH-53K
helicopter currently being built for the Marine Corps would be
a logical option that might replace the capability that would
be lost with the retirement of the Navy's MH-53E fleet.

Continued F-15 C/D fleet modernization

The committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force is
undertaking a review of its aircraft force mix and structure,
including the appropriate balance between 4th and 5th
generation aircraft in the Active-Duty and reserve force, and
that the Air Force expects to complete that review in August
2018. Therefore, the committee requests a briefing on the
results of this review no later than September 1, 2018.
The committee remains concerned that retiring entire
fighter fleets, like the F-15C, without acquiring sufficient
replacement aircraft, will drive the number of fighter aircraft
below the levels required by the National Defense Strategy and
below the floor established by Section 131 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91). Until the Air Force makes a final determination on the
future of the F-15C/D fleet, the committee encourages the Air
Force to continue investment in the modernization of the F-15
C/D, including the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
radar, the Electronic Warning Warfare System (EWWS), and the
Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS),
which provides radar warning, geo-location, situational
awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect and defeat
surface and airborne threats in contested environments. The
committee notes the Air Force has funded procurement of EPAWSS
for its F-15E fleet and the necessary research and development
to outfit the F-15C/D fleet.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal technology development

The committee notes that conventional Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) units across the military services require
upgraded equipment and technology enhancements, particularly
for routine inspection and search activities. The committee
believes that conventional Joint Service EOD units may benefit
from rapid acquisition of EOD equipment, which have high-
definition resolution and encrypted signals, among other
upgraded capabilities. The committee understands that the
Department of Defense canceled the Explosive Ordnance Disposal/
Low Intensity Conflict program element which formerly developed
and delivered Joint Service EOD advanced capabilities. The
committee understands the Combating Terrorism Technical Support
Office (CTTSO) will absorb this mission area within the
Improvised Defeat Device and Explosive Countermeasures subgroup
activity.
The committee encourages the Director of the CTTSO to
appropriately prioritize funding toward delivering advanced
capabilities for conventional Joint-Service EOD units.

F-35 modifications to Block 4 configuration

To date, the committee notes neither the Air Force, the
Navy, nor the Marine Corps has made a decision on what portion
of the current fleet of F-35 aircraft will be brought up to a
Block 4 configuration.
Pursuant to section 224(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2017 (Public Law 114-328), the
Secretary of Defense submitted a report to the congressional
defense committees that contained the basic elements of an
acquisition program baseline for F-35 Follow-on Modernization
(FOM) Block 4. Within the report, per aircraft cost estimates
to retrofit Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lots 2-8
aircraft to a Block 4 configuration are roughly $16.0 million,
and per aircraft cost estimates to retrofit LRIP 9-10 aircraft
to Block 4 configuration are roughly $13.0 million. With more
than 350 F-35s already procured that could require modification
to Block 4 and the substantial cost to modify each aircraft to
the most advanced configuration to provide the best capability
to the warfighter, considerable affordability issues face the
Department.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Defense to submit a report not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, to identify which F-35 aircraft will be
brought up to a Block 4 configuration and a timeline to
complete modernization to Block 4.

Ford-class sustainment and product support

The committee notes that with the delivery of the USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in May 2017, sustainment and product
support of this new class of aircraft carriers will be critical
to mission effectiveness and operational availability. As the
Ford-class program continues with testing and delivery of
additional aircraft carriers, the committee believes life cycle
sustainment planning must be properly funded to maintain hull,
mechanical, electrical, and combat systems to the class' 50-
year service life.
Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the budget
request included no funding for maintaining Electromagnetic
Aircraft Launch System software. The committee urges the Navy
to plan for and appropriately fund sustainment and product
support for Ford-class aircraft carriers, particularly systems
critical to mission accomplishment.

Guided missile frigate (FFG(X))

The committee applauds the Navy's decision to procure a
guided missile frigate (FFG(X)) with increased lethality,
survivability, and endurance to meet the requirement for Small
Surface Combatants within the most recent Navy Force Structure
Assessment. While maintaining the Navy's ``high/low'' mix of
ships, the FFG(X) program greatly expands upon the capabilities
of the Littoral Combat Ship program, returning many of the
multi-mission warfighting attributes of Oliver Hazard Perry-
class frigates to the fleet and enabling operations in more
contested environments.
As the Navy refines FFG(X) concept designs with industry
through fiscal year 2019, the committee continues to support a
full and open competition with a single source detail design
and construction award in fiscal year 2020. The committee also
supports the Navy's approach to commonality with existing Navy
platforms, such as the Mark-41 Vertical Launch System and
Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar, to reduce acquisition and
sustainment costs. The committee encourages the Navy not to
trade-off warfighting capability for other considerations.

HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopter program

Air Force combat rescue forces and assets are among the
most deployed in the Department of Defense, and the heroic
efforts of Air Force combat rescue airmen and women have
resulted in over 12,000 U.S. and allied lives saved, often
under harrowing conditions. These demanding conditions have
exacted a significant toll on this force, which has suffered
significant combat losses of aircraft and personnel. The HH-60W
Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) will replace the Air Force's
rapidly aging HH-60G Pavehawk helicopters to continue to
perform these critical combat search and rescue and personnel
recovery operations. The current Air Force program of record is
for a minimum of 112 HH-60W CRH aircraft. The committee notes
that numerous force structure studies have documented the need
for between 141 (USAF CSAR-X Analysis of Alternatives) and 171
(Joint Forces Command Joint CSAR Study) aircraft to meet the
rescue requirement demands. Therefore, the committee supports
112 as the minimum number of HH-60W CRH aircraft to support the
validated requirement.

Immersive virtual shipboard environment training

The committee understands that the Navy has used game-based
learning concepts to develop immersive virtual shipboard
environment (IVSE) training for select watchstations aboard
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) since 2013. The committee further
understands that this IVSE training may have contributed to
faster qualifications and certification timelines, higher
degrees of proficiency, and increased knowledge retention. The
committee believes that other programs may be able to benefit
from IVSE training.
Accordingly, not later than November 1, 2018, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the
congressional defense committees a report on IVSE training.
This report shall include: (1) An assessment of IVSE training
effectiveness compared to other training methods, including
training benefits and lessons learned with IVSE training for
LCS watchstations; (2) Future plans to incorporate game-based
learning concepts and IVSE training to improve Navy and Marine
Corps training for other naval platforms; (3) Other potential
opportunities to incorporate game-based learning concepts and
IVSE training to improve Navy and Marine Corps training for
naval platforms; and (4) Any other related matters the
Secretary deems appropriate.

Intermediary Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile

The committee is concerned that the Army and Marine Corps
have a capability gap in rocket and missile artillery,
specifically an inability to engage targets at long ranges. The
current inventory of mobile surface-to-surface missiles is not
adequate to provide timely and accurate all-weather fire
support in a Global Positioning System-denied environment to
the joint force at ranges between 60 and 499 kilometers. The
committee notes that current initial operational capability for
the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) program is not until
2025. The committee encourages collaboration between the Army
and Marine Corps in finding an intermediary solution, which
could be procured and fielded rapidly to provide U.S. ground
forces with the capability to engage targets beyond 200
kilometers until LRPF is operational.

John Lewis-class fleet oiler multiyear procurement strategy

The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 Navy shipbuilding
plan includes seven John Lewis-class fleet oilers (T-AO)
procured in fiscal years 2020 through 2024 at a cost of more
than $3.6 billion. The committee further notes that the first
ship of this class, USS John Lewis (T-AO-205), was awarded in
fiscal year 2016 and will be delivered to the Navy in November
2020.
The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost-
estimating precision have been achieved to merit consideration
of a multiyear procurement contract for John Lewis-class fleet
oilers in future budget requests.
The committee also notes recent shipbuilding multiyear
procurement contract proposals projected savings in excess of
10 percent, as compared to annual procurement.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to
consider a multiyear procurement strategy for John Lewis-class
fleet oilers in future budget requests.

Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and small arms

The committee continues to support the Department's efforts
to decrease the weight of metal cartridge cases for ammunition
in order to decrease the load burdens on the warfighter.
Notable improvements include the potential for improved
accuracy and consistency, increased individual mobility,
decreased logistical resupply burdens, and reduced fuel
consumption in operations.
The committee is supportive of recent efforts at the Naval
Surface Warfare Center Crane Division to test and qualify 0.50
caliber ammunition with polymer cartridge cases, which resulted
in greater accuracy and more consistent rates of fire.
Notably, the committee understands that efforts to lighten
the weight of ammunition boxes with different materials can
decrease weight by 33 percent, and when combined with the 25 to
35 percent weight reduction from polymer cartridge cases and
other efforts, can reduce the weight of a 0.50 caliber
ammunition box by roughly 75 percent.
Additionally, the committee is encouraged by efforts to
replace the metal of linked ammunition with polymer links,
which can reduce weight by nine pounds per ammunition box, or
1,000 pounds per pallet.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department to
continue and expand its efforts to explore polymer and other
material weight reductions to other types of ammunition that
could further reduce burdens on the warfighter.
The committee continues to hold the view that any new
ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity,
and accuracy and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of
training, weapon function, lethality, storage, and
transportation.

Maneuver Short Range Air Defense to counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The committee is aware of the threat that small, agile, and
low altitude Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) pose to military
ground forces in the field. The committee understands that the
Army is seeking a cross-domain, multi-dimensional solution that
can address both the evolving UAS threat that is becoming more
difficult to detect, identify, and defeat as well as the
ability to provide short-range air defense against low flying
UAS and cruise missiles for Army maneuver units.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army to provide a
briefing not later than September 30, 2018, identifying what
requirements are similar to both the maneuver short-range air
defense (MSHORAD) mission areas and the Counter-Unmanned
Aircraft System (C-UAS) mission. Furthermore, the Army should
identify what capabilities have been deployed, or are in
development, that could be considered for use with Army ground
mobile platforms to simultaneously address the C-UAS and M-
SHORAD mission areas.

Navy equipment for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker program

The committee notes the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report on April 13, 2017, titled ``Status of
Coast Guard's Heavy Polar Icebreaker Acquisition'' (GAO-18-
385R), which noted added space, weight, and power reservations
for Navy equipment, such as a multi-mode radar and minor
caliber weapons, were incorporated in the Department of
Homeland Security-approved Operational Requirements Document
for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker (HPIB) in January 2018. The
committee is interested in better understanding the plan for
Navy equipment to be incorporated on HPIBs.
Accordingly, not later than December 1, 2018, the Secretary
of the Navy, in consultation with the Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Management, shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives an unclassified report, which may include a
classified annex, containing the following: (1) A detailed
description of Navy equipment planned to be included in HPIBs,
including Navy-Type, Navy-Owned equipment; (2) The estimated
space, weight, power, and cost for the equipment described in
paragraph (1); (3) A description of Navy equipment under
consideration to be included in HPIBs; (4) The estimated space,
weight, power, and cost for the equipment described in
paragraph (3); (5) An explanation of the capability of the
equipment listed in paragraphs (1) and (3) to assist or augment
the missions of the Combatant Commanders and the execution of
the Department of Defense's 2016 Arctic Strategy; and (6) A
description of how the equipment listed in paragraphs (1) and
(3) will meet a modular open systems approach to allow for
future mission expansion.

Navy small arms weapons training

The committee understands that the Navy Expeditionary
Combat Command (NECC) and the Navy Strategic Systems Program
(SSP) have successfully demonstrated an innovative synthetic
small arms training approach. The committee further understands
this approach provides realistic metrics-based skills for a
variety of individual and crew-served training courses of
instruction. The committee believes other Navy commands could
benefit from similar innovative synthetic small arms training
approaches. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the
Navy to consider expanding innovative synthetic small arms
training approaches beyond the NECC and Navy SSP.

Preservation of F-117 aircraft with certified combat sorties

The committee is aware that there are currently no F-117A
aircraft with certified combat sorties on permanent display at
either the National Museum of the United States Air Force in
Dayton, Ohio or the National Air and Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution. Following its first flight in 1981,
the F-117A ably served in combat during Operations Just Cause,
Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom
before being retired from front line service in 2007. The
committee recognizes the F-117A's unique importance in aviation
history as the world's first operational stealth aircraft and
believes the Air Force should take appropriate steps to ensure
future generations have the opportunity to experience first-
hand combat-proven F-117As.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
of the Air Force to make the first two retiring F-117A aircraft
with documented combat sorties available to the National Museum
of the United States Air Force and the National Air and Space
Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. The committee also notes
the current presence at the National Museum of the United
States Air Force of the existing prototype F-117 and encourages
the Secretary of the Air Force to consider its transfer to an
accredited affiliate of the National Museum of the United
States Air Force or the National Air and Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution.

Presidential protection

The committee recognizes the vital importance of the
presidential protection mission. The airborne component is
critical to ensuring safe airspace around the President.
However, the committee is concerned with the inefficient use of
national assets, such as the F-22, to accomplish the
presidential protection mission. The committee believes this
mission could be ably accomplished by a number of assets,
including those from the Navy and Marine Corps, thereby
relieving the stress on our most capable assets so they can
focus on training to rebuild readiness and deter peer
competitors.
The committee understands that Air Combat Command is
pursuing different options to provide better and more efficient
presidential support. However, the committee believes that the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should examine how to
provide presidential support most efficiently, using all
available Department of Defense assets.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to reassess presidential support tasking and
options for improving the efficiency of support with an
emphasis on freeing the most capable aircraft assets to focus
on training for the most stressing operational requirements, in
line with National Defense Strategy.

Report on Air Force plan for fighter aircraft

The committee understands that Air Combat Command is
developing a Fighter Roadmap which will detail the Air Force's
plans for the fighter aircraft fleet.
The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives on the Air Combat Command Fighter Roadmap. The
report shall describe the Air Force's plans for the fourth-
generation fighter fleet and plans for converting fighter units
to the F-35. To the extent feasible, the report should discuss
the criteria to be used for future basing operations of F-35
aircraft.

Report on Navy's current and future state of long range strike
capability

The Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees not later than February
1st, 2019 that describes the current and future state of the
Navy's long range strike strategy. This report should include a
comprehensive description of the Navy's plan to use all the
various Navy munitions programs to meet operational
requirements for land and maritime strike. The report should
include discussion of the Next Generation Long-Range Attack
Weapon (NGLAW), the Tomahawk and follow-on upgrades like the
Maritime Strike Tomahawk and the Joint Multi-Effects Warhead
System (JMEWS), Conventional Prompt Strike, Over-the-Horizon
missile, SM-6, the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), and
any follow-on programs. The report should include how the Navy
strategy will impact to the missile industrial base.

Rifle Marksmanship Training

The committee notes that the service branches utilize
traditional M4/M16 marksman training practices in connection
with both basic marksmanship instruction and in maintaining
marksmanship proficiency of seasoned personnel. Current dry
firing techniques, an essential rifle training element, require
servicemembers to recharge their weapons after each trigger
pull. The committee is aware that a new rifle dry fire device
(RDFD) technology exists that simulates a live fire session.
This technology has the ability to improve proper marksmanship
fundamentals and weapon manipulation skills, which can lead to
increased lethality and combat survival rates. During dry fire
sessions RDFD replaces the lower receiver of the M4/M16,
thereby allowing for simultaneous training with sights, lasers,
lights, switches, and hand placement while diminishing the
possibility of negligent discharge. Improved M4/M16
marksmanship proficiency may be increased through RDFD, which
in turn could lead to reduced costs associated with ammunition
(live and blank), range time, and other expense items. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by December
31, 2018, regarding the feasibility of utilizing RDFD
technology for use with the M4/M16 rifle and any next
generation rifle platform.

San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport ship multiyear
procurement strategy

The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 Navy shipbuilding
plan includes four San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious
transport ships (LPD) procured in fiscal years 2020 through
2024 at a cost of approximately $7.0 billion. The committee
further notes the Navy has identified LPD-30, which was
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as the first
Flight II LPD.
The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost-
estimating precision have been achieved to merit consideration
of a multiyear procurement contract for San Antonio-class
Flight II amphibious transport ships, which will be procured in
fiscal years 2020 through 2024. The committee further believes
the Navy should maintain a procurement rate of one Flight II
LPD per year to meet Navy requirements faster, as well as
increase industrial base efficiency and stability.
The committee also notes recent shipbuilding multiyear
procurement contract proposals projected savings in excess of
10 percent, as compared to annual procurements.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to
utilize a multiyear procurement strategy for San Antonio-class
Flight II amphibious transport ships in the President's Budget
request for fiscal year 2020.

Small Unit Support Vehicle report

The committee notes that the Small Unit Support Vehicle
(SUSV) is the only vehicle that units can use to operate in
deep snow conditions. The SUSV was designed to be air-droppable
and able to operate in almost any condition. From a fleet of
nearly 600 vehicles, there are fewer than 100 working SUSVs
left. The SUSV is no longer a program of record, and as a
result many SUSVs in the fleet are being cannibalized to keep a
small number of SUSVs running.
Recently, the U.S. Army identified requirements for a Joint
All-Weather/All-Terrain Support Vehicle (JAASV). Furthermore,
the House and Senate reports accompanying H.R. 2810 (H. Rpt.
115-200) and S. 1519 (S. Rpt. 115-125) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91)
required the Department of Defense to conduct a Business Case
Analysis to develop or procure a replacement for the SUSV. This
analysis concluded that the replacement for the SUSV ``will
compete for resourcing during POM 20-24, United States Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will define the Total
Army requirement for both the Active and Reserve components,
and Headquarters, Department of the Army will consider pursuing
a SUSV/JAASV using Rapid Acquisition Authorities to quickly
procure a Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS), Non Developmental
Item solution.''
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense to conduct a Department-wide operational needs review
for the JAASV and subsequently consider granting rapid
acquisition authorities needed to begin quick procurement of a
COTS solution to this capability shortfall.

Stryker A1 Production

The committee is concerned about the Army's funding
strategy for Stryker A1 production. The Stryker A1
configuration includes the Double-V Hull (DVH) upgrade and
Engineering Change Proposal 1 to provide enhanced mobility and
power.
The fiscal year 2019 Army budget request included $21.9
million for Stryker upgrades to convert three flat bottom
vehicles into the Double V Hull (DVH) A1 configuration.
However, the committee is concerned that this does not resource
the Stryker program sufficiently given the National Defense
Strategy and long-term plans for the Stryker vehicle fleet.
Therefore, the committee included a $149.0 million zero-sum
movement of funds within the Stryker program, authorizing a
total of $171.0 million.
The committee understands that the Army made a decision at
a Requirements Oversight Council meeting to upgrade the entire
Stryker legacy fleet to the Stryker A1 configuration. This
decision was made after the Army submitted the fiscal year 2019
budget request. The Army has a total of 9 Stryker Brigade
Combat Teams, and over 2,700 Stryker vehicles do not have both
the DVH and engineering upgrades. In addition, the Army intends
to use the Stryker A1 chassis for the Maneuver Short Range Air
Defense capability which will likely require additional Stryker
vehicles.
Therefore, as the Army considers funding levels for future
budget requests, the committee encourages the Army to provide
the necessary resources to support the decision to modernize
the Stryker fleet to the A1 configuration, which may include
modernizing at least one half of a brigade per year. Finally,
the committee urges the Army to evaluate the potential cost
savings and schedule acceleration that could be achieved by a
multi-year procurement strategy.

Swarm attack defense of Navy ships

The committee recognizes the growing threat of small boat
swarm attacks, in which an enemy seeks to overwhelm a ship's
layered defenses by attacking in large numbers from different
directions. The committee is concerned that some Navy vessels
may lack sufficient self-defense capability against such
threats. For example, as noted in the fiscal year 2017 annual
report by the Office of the Director, Operational Test &
Evaluation, the Expeditionary Sea Base (T-ESB) ``self-defense
capability is limited to crew-served weapons only. The T-ESB
was designed to operate in a non-hostile environment with low/
negligible threats to the ship. However, mine countermeasure
operations may require the ship to operate close to littoral
threat areas. The lack of self-defense capability renders the
ship dependent upon other naval combatants and joint forces for
protection in the littoral operating environment.''
In order to ensure ships are sufficiently protected against
swarm raids and other small boat attacks, the committee urges
the Secretary of the Navy to ensure adequate self-defense
capability requirements are in place for the mission sets and
scenarios such ships may be called upon to undertake.

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

Codification and reauthorization of Defense Research and Development
Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify the
Rapid Innovation Program and would clarify elements of the
program, including funding levels and policy surrounding broad
agency announcements.
The committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program was
established to help increase the number of non-traditional
vendors in technology and research and to help those innovators
bridge the gap between basic research and commercialization.
The program has demonstrated benefits to meeting Department of
Defense (DOD) needs and should become a permanent facet of the
DOD's toolkit for helping to improve acquisition of
technologies and support U.S. small business innovators.

Procedures for rapid reaction to emerging technology (sec. 212)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe a procedure for the
designation and development of urgently needed emerging
technology research.
The committee established the position of Under Secretary
for Research and Engineering (USD (R&E)) within the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), with the intention that this role would drive rapid
innovation across science and technology within the Department.
However, the committee recognizes that streamlined processes
may need to be established to ensure that the Department is
able to keep pace with the current speed of technological
change. Therefore, the committee directs the USD (R&E) to
establish a streamlined process that would allow the Department
to identify areas of rapid technological change and indicate
the need for immediate investment. This process could be
similar to the Joint Urgent Operational Need process,
established based on a similar provision in section 806 of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (Public Law 107-314).

Activities on identification and development of enhanced personal
protective equipment against blast injury (sec. 213)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
joint activities to be conducted in fiscal years 2019 and 2020
by the Secretary of the Army and the Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation, in collaboration with academia, to determine
the most effective personal equipment to protect against
injuries caused by blasts in training and combat with $10.0
million authorized to be available to carry out joint
activities.
The committee notes that the Director of the Department of
Defense (DoD) Blast Injury Research Program Coordinating Office
established pursuant to Section 256 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) has
a mission to ensure that effective mechanisms exist for
focusing and coordinating DoD blast injury research efforts and
collaboration with research expertise outside DoD. The
committee recommends that Secretary of the Army, in his role as
Executive Agent for Medical Research for Prevention,
Mitigation, and Treatment of Blast Injuries ensure that the
Office coordinates in the execution of activities mandated and
authorized by this section.

Human factors modeling and simulation activities (sec. 214)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Army, through the Army Research Institute or the Army Futures
Command as determined appropriate, to establish human factors
modeling and simulation activities. The military departments
within the Department of Defense (DOD) seek ways to provide
warfighters and civilians with personalized assessment,
education, and training tools; to identify and implement
effective ways to interface and team warfighters and civilians
with machines; to use intelligent, adaptive augmentation to
enhance decision-making; and to develop techniques,
technologies, and practices to mitigate critical stressors that
impede warfighter and civilian protection, sustainment, and
performance.
The committee is aware of the significant possibilities
that human factors modeling and simulation (M&S) will provide
to the DOD when coupled with applied research in human
simulation informed by physics-based survivability analysis
models. Benefits of this type of M&S include enhancing
warfighter performance and protection as well as improving
efficiency and effectiveness in the development and procurement
of personal protective equipment and weapons while realizing
significant cost savings. Human factors M&S can rapidly assess
many variables to quickly provide insights to optimize and
integrate warfighter-based systems, including predicting
injury, mobility, and survivability. These vital analytics
contribute to determining the likelihood of mission success, as
well as ways to expand training capabilities. The integration
of physics-based human simulation, artificial intelligence, and
clinical knowledge into systems has the potential to rapidly
transform mission readiness and success.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
establish activities related to human factors modeling and
simulation to maximize the effectiveness of the warfighter in
each service, in concert with the warfighter's respective
equipment and weapons systems. Such activities would bring
together academia, industry, DOD science and technology, and
DOD Program Executive Offices to accelerate research and
development that enhances capabilities for human performance,
human-systems integration, and training for the warfighter.

Expansion of mission areas supported by mechanisms for expedited access
to technical talent and expertise at academic institutions
(sec. 215)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
mission areas included in the authority granted in section 217
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91) to space, infrastructure resilience, and
photonics.
The statute that this provision would extend gave the
Secretary of Defense the authority to establish one or more
multi-institution task order contracts, consortia, cooperative
agreements, or other arrangements with universities that do not
have similar existing constructs to facilitate expedited access
to university technical expertise in support of Department of
Defense mission areas. The extension to new mission areas would
allow for more connections between universities and the
Department of Defense in priority technologies.
The committee originally authorized this effort because of
its concern that the Department of Defense was not optimally
positioned to capitalize on all cross-functional aspects of
emerging technologies that serve multiple purposes. The
committee continues to believe a more streamlined construct
must be available for expedited access to combine technical
expertise and research efforts, reduce costs, and eliminate
duplication of effort.
The committee notes and supports the ongoing basic research
activities that are funded by the Department of Defense at
universities and government labs, which have led to the
development of most of the operational capabilities used by the
Nation's military today, ranging from stealth to precision
munitions to battlefield medicine, aircraft sustainment, and
the Internet. The committee intends the authority in the
recommended provision to supplement those basic research
funding authorities and activities, and it expects the
Department to issue guidelines as appropriate that reflect a
streamlined, efficient process for components to have increased
access to the technical expertise resident in the Nation's
universities to help address the technical, engineering, and
management challenges facing the Department.
In using the mechanisms established in the recommended
provision, the committee urges the Department to expand the
number of individual institutions actively pursuing and
demonstrating technical expertise in the disciplines that
directly support the efforts of the Department of Defense.

Advanced manufacturing activities (sec. 216)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to
jointly establish activities aimed at demonstrating advanced
manufacturing techniques and capabilities in depot-level
activities or military arsenal facilities. Broadly, the
committee urges the Department to consider these activities as
part of more holistic plans to benefit from advanced
manufacturing within its own organizations and the commercial
sector.
The committee recognizes the transformative potential of
additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, to the industrial
supply chain and across disciplines. The ability to use new
materials in new ways or to develop new manufacturing processes
has the potential to transform how the Department does business
and significantly increase system readiness. The establishment
of new Defense Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, including
one focused on additive manufacturing, as well as the growing
prevalence of 3-D printers at tactical levels indicate that the
Department sees that potential as well.
The committee recognizes the extensive and growing reach of
additive manufacturing within the commercial and defense
sectors. However, additive manufacturing could also greatly
improve the defense industrial base's ability to respond to
military readiness demands when original equipment
manufacturers are unable to meet or to fabricate obsolete parts
that are no longer manufactured. Substantial room remains
across the force to add more capacity for this type of
capability, both to repair out-of-date equipment and to speed
repair in order to meet urgent operational requirements.
Therefore, this provision would require the establishment
of not less than three activities to demonstrate these
techniques and capabilities. These activities would include
efforts to develop military and quality assurance standards as
quickly as possible and leverage current manufacturing
institutes to conduct research in the validation of quality
standards for additive manufactured parts. To complete these
activities, the Department may enter into cooperative
agreements and partnerships, based on several specific
characteristics. Ultimately, the committee urges the Department
to further integrate advanced manufacturing capabilities and
capacity.

National security innovation activities (sec. 217)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
establish activities to develop interaction between the
Department of Defense and the commercial technology industry
and academia with the goal of encouraging private investment in
specific hardware technologies of interest to future defense
technology needs with unique national security applications
with $150.0 million authorized to be available to carry out
such activities.
Under this provision, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering may transfer such activities to a non-
profit entity to carry out the program if the Under Secretary
can establish that a non-profit entity with sufficient private
sector investment and personnel with the sufficient technical
and management expertise can attract sufficient private sector
investment, has personnel with sufficient technical and
management expertise, and has identified relevant technologies
and systems for potential investment in order to carry out the
specific activities authorized.

Partnership intermediaries for promotion of defense research and
education (sec. 218)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRL) to
establish partnership intermediary agreements (PIA) with not-
for-profit entities or state and local government organizations
to enable research and technology development cooperation to
promote innovation to support defense missions. A PIA is an
agreement, contract, or memorandum of understanding, between
the government and an intermediary organization, such as a
State or local governmental agency or nonprofit entity. A
Partnership Intermediary performs services for the government
labs that increase the likelihood of success in the conduct of
cooperative or joint activities with small business firms,
institutions of higher education, and industry. The PIA
facilitates a wide range of licensing and other technology
transfer initiatives.
The committee notes that military capabilities are
supported by universities and industry in the maturation of
technologies and production of materiel solutions. Much of the
innovation comes from partnership with small businesses and
universities. The commercial market driving the development of
technologies is very dynamic. Military capability solutions are
unique and often do not have a regular commercial market
audience. The STRLs carry out significant basic and
developmental research, much of it in collaboration with
academia and the private sector. The government-funded research
efforts to address military threats are critical to reducing
technology development risk, and, if successful, can attract
the necessary private sector partners and support to lead to
manufacturing and commercialization or production of defense
systems. However, traditional federal parameters are not
sufficiently agile and flexible to allow military laboratories
to respond in a timely fashion to the market-driven needs of
its private sector partners, thus discouraging the partnerships
that can often accelerate efforts to meet these vital military
needs.
The committee believes that working through and in
collaboration with partnership intermediaries provides the
flexible supporting mechanism to effectively and efficiently
interact with industry and academic partners to support better
sharing of intellectual property, technical expertise, and
research and testing facilities between interested public and
private sector partners.

Limitation on use of funds for Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (sec.
219)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funds
to exceed a procurement quantity of one Surface Navy Laser
Weapon System (SNLWS), also known as the High Energy Laser and
Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS), per
fiscal year, unless the Secretary of the Navy submits a report
to the congressional defense committees.
The committee understands that Navy officials designated
SNLWS/HELIOS as the first rapid prototyping, experimentation
and demonstration (RPED) project. The committee further notes
that, on January 26, 2018, the Navy awarded a $150.0 million
contract for SNLWS Increment 1, HELIOS systems. Under this
contract, the contractor will develop, manufacture, and deliver
two test units in fiscal year 2020. The committee further
understands this contract includes options for up to 14
additional production units, which, if exercised, would bring
the cumulative contract value to $942.8 million.
If the cumulative contract value is reached, expenditures
under this program may exceed the Acquisition Category (ACAT)
I-thresholds for research, development, test, and evaluation
(RDT&E), including significant production. However, the
committee has not yet received sufficient information on the
requirements, acquisition plan, test plan, funding profile, and
cost estimate to enable appropriate oversight.
The committee supports accelerated acquisition approaches,
such as RPED. However, accelerated approaches, especially those
that may expend significant resources and enter into
production, such as SNLWS/HELIOS, must adhere to sound
acquisition principles. Accordingly, this provision would
direct the Secretary of the Navy to certify how SNLWS is
incorporating those principles prior to exceeding the
procurement rate of one SNLWS/HELIOS per year, including: a
requirements document, acquisition plan, test plan, funding
profile, and cost estimate. The committee encourages the Navy
to tailor the certification materials to the extent provided
for by existing flexibilities in acquisition law or regulation.

Expansion of coordination requirement for support for national security
innovation and entrepreneurial education (sec. 220)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
list of entities with whom the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, may coordinate and partner in order to support
national security innovation and entrepreneurial education.

Limitation on funding for Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2 (sec. 221)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit all
of the funds authorized for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2
from being obligated or expended until the Secretary of Defense
provides the required report identified in the section titled
Report on the Highest-priority roles and missions of the
Department of Defense and the Armed Forces.

Defense quantum information science and technology research and
development program (sec. 222)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
defense quantum information science and technology research and
development program aimed at ensuring that the U.S. military is
able to most effectively leverage the technological
capabilities enable by quantum science and technology to meet
future military missions. The effort would be led by the
Undersecretary for Defense for Research and Engineering. The
committee notes that research and development activities in
quantum science shows the promise of: (1) Producing computers
that will exceed the capabilities of all known traditional
computers; (2) Enabling communication systems that enhance
cryptography and the speed of communications; and (3)
Developing measurement devices and sensors with heretofore
unachievable precision and sensitivity. All of these will have
significant impacts in the commercial sector, as well as in
military systems.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has been investing in research and development in quantum
information science and technology for many years, and has
recently begun to ramp up those investments. The committee has
also increased funding for these efforts in this bill. Private
industry has significantly increased their investments in
quantum science, in an attempt to pursue commercial
applications. The committee's provision is intended to provide
a strategic framework for DOD activities in this area, to help
ensure U.S. superiority in the field, especially with respect
to national security missions and systems.
The provision calls for coordination of quantum science
research activities within the Department as well as
encouraging robust interagency collaboration. For example, the
committee notes that both the Department of Energy national
laboratories and the Department of Commerce's National
Institute of Standards and Technology have significant
capability in quantum science which can contribute to DOD
research and development efforts. It further calls for
developing procedures for the effective transition of quantum
science-enabled capabilities into deployed systems, and to
support efforts to establish robust industrial and technical
capabilities in the government and private sector, including
facilities an infrastructure needed to sustain quantum
research.
To focus the research portfolio, the provision recommends
the establishment of a set of technical challenges that are
consistent with expert analysis of the state of quantum
research and its ability to enable advanced military
capabilities, such as in data analysis, cryptography, and
sensing. Due to concerns with the diffusion of quantum science
research knowledge and intellectual property to peer
competitors, the provision directs the Undersecretary to
develop classification guidance and data management strategies
for the appropriate protection on information. The committee
notes that the Undersecretary must strike an appropriate
balance between protecting national security secrets, and
ensuring that the government, industry, and academic community
can engage in open research and innovation as is necessary to
advance the field.

Joint directed energy test activities (sec. 223)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
coordination and enhancement of directed energy test
activities. The committee notes that next generation directed
energy weapon systems are being developed by the Department of
Defense (DOD) and industry but the Nation's infrastructure for
testing those weapon systems is antiquated and in need of
modernization.
The Department established the Nation's first High Energy
Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF) in 1975, but the technology
has seen significant advancements over the course of four
decades. As directed energy weapon systems mature, the need to
validate their performance becomes increasingly important. The
workload and number of directed energy demonstrations and
exercises have increased significantly since 1975 and the
projected workload for fiscal years 2018-2022 for HELSTF is
large and growing, and has expanded to include high-powered
microwave testing. Given these trends, this provision would
require the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to focus on management and acceleration of directed
energy testing activities. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee
recommends additional funding to initiate the modernization of
directed energy infrastructure and test activities.
The committee applauds the Air Force for proposing plans
for joint testing activities, which could potentially focus
government expertise and reduce duplication of effort across
the DOD, thus supporting more rapid and cost effective testing
and fielding of directed energy weapon systems. The committee
believes that doing so could also allow for broad, standardized
collection and evaluation of data to establish test references
and support acquisition and policy decisions in a more reliable
fashion.

Requirement for establishment of arrangements for expedited access to
technical talent and expertise at academic institutions to
support Department of Defense missions (sec. 224)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
establishment of arrangements for expedited access to talent
and expertise at academic institutions to support Department of
Defense missions.

Authority for Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to conduct
research relating to high powered microwave capabilities (sec.
225)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
purview of the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to
include research relating to high powered microwave
capabilities.

Joint artificial intelligence research, development, and transition
activities (sec. 226)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD
(R&E)) to focus and coordinate Department of Defense (DOD)
efforts on artificial intelligence. Focus in these areas should
encompass coordination among the Services and the development
of a comprehensive strategy for the DOD.

Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

Report on comparative capabilities of adversaries in key technology
areas (sec. 231)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in coordination
with relevant partners, to complete a report that directly
compares United States capabilities in near-term emerging
technology (e.g., hypersonic weapons, directed energy) and
longer-term emerging technology (e.g., artificial intelligence,
quantum information sciences) with that of U.S. adversaries.
This report should include relative spending information,
evaluations of quality and quantity of research, test
infrastructure and workforce, evaluations of technical
progress, timelines for operational deployment, and an
assessment of adversary intent or willingness to use the
specified technology.

Report on active protection systems for armored combat and tactical
vehicles (sec. 232)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on
the technologies related to active protection systems for
armored combat and tactical vehicles no later than 60 days
after the enactment of this Act.
The committee notes that the Army has conducted detailed
testing of three active protection systems on the M1A2 Abrams,
M2A3 Bradley, and STRYKER. Accordingly, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to report on the effectiveness of the
systems tested, plans for future testing, proposals for future
development, and a timeline for fielding. The Secretary should
include plans for how the Army will incorporate active
protection systems into new armored combat and tactical vehicle
designs such as Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), Armored
Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), and Next Generation Combat
Vehicle (NGCV).

Next Generation Combat Vehicle (sec. 233)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on
the development of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) no
later than 60 days after the enactment of this bill into law.
The committee is concerned that there is insufficient
analysis to support the requirements for the NGCV, including
consideration of threats and terrain, and that the requirements
may not be relevant to the National Defense Strategy (NDS).
Furthermore, the committee views this combat vehicle as a
replacement to the aging Bradley fighting vehicle and believes
it should be optimized for close combat maneuver, agile
exploitation and transport of mechanized infantry as part of an
armored, combined arms team.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Army to use all available acquisition authorities, to the
fullest extent possible, to build a ground combat vehicle
prototype with the potential to be rapidly produced and
fielded. The committee expects the Army to exploit modern
component technologies that can dramatically change basic
combat vehicle design to improve lethality, protection,
mobility, range, and sustainment. Such technologies could
include vehicle active protection systems, reactive armor,
composite armor, thermal signature reduction, noise reduction,
fuel cell propulsion, opposed-piston engines, advanced
transmissions, suspension, power generation, voltage
management, 3rd generation forward looking infrared sights,
integrated hostile fire detection, manned-unmanned teaming,
automatic loaders, extended range top attack munitions, and
cannons. The committee also encourages the Secretary to pursue
an open system architecture to allow for future development.
Finally, this prototype should possess sufficient power, design
and other capabilities to enable the manned vehicle to control
unmanned vehicles, when applicable.
The committee directs the Secretary to fully enable the
Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering
Center (TARDEC) to develop an NGCV prototype based on their
work to date. To support this effort, the committee believes
TARDEC should be granted needed funds and authorities to
develop a separate prototyping effort. The committee would
require the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2019 for the Department of Defense by section 201 and
available for research, development, test, and evaluation,
Army, PE 63645A, for NGCV, not more than 50 percent may be
obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army submits
to congressional defense committees the report.

Report on the future of the defense research and engineering enterprise
(sec. 234)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD
(R&E)) to conduct a review of the defense research and
engineering enterprise.
Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) established the position
of USD (R&E) in order to serve as Chief Technology Officer for
the Department of Defense and to oversee the research and
engineering enterprise. The committee believes that this role
should be charged with solving enterprise-wide challenges
facing the Department of Defense and so tasks the position with
recommending solutions for improving the enterprise's success
in a changing environment.
The technological world has changed significantly over the
past decades. Commercial investment in technology has increased
exponentially, the U.S. government's challenges with recruiting
and retaining a qualified technical workforce have grown, the
diffusion of technology around the world has occurred rapidly,
and the rate at which technology within the Department of
Defense moves from discovery to deployment in operational
systems has plunged. Given these changes, the committee
believes that the Department would benefit from a strategic
review of its research and engineering enterprise, including
the military department science and technology organizations,
the Department of Defense laboratories, the test ranges, the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental, the Strategic Capabilities
Office, and the Small Business Innovation Research program.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) concluded a thorough and
insightful review of this enterprise in January 2017 and found
that the labs continue to fulfill vital missions on behalf of
the warfighter but that they must also adapt their mission to
continue to serve and ready themselves for evolving needs. The
report includes a clear dictate that ``OSD [the Office of the
Secretary of Defense] must actively champion and support the
labs and Congress must continue working with the Department to
simplify the regulatory environment in which the labs
operate.''
The committee sees this provision as formally endorsing the
DSB's recommendation for attention to the challenges facing the
laboratories, but, given the expansive purview of the USD
(R&E), recommends that the scope of this study widen. The
committee urges the USD (R&E) to identify any current
impediments to effectiveness and recommend, where necessary,
legislative actions for fixes. The committee is eager to use
this report to ensure the relevance of defense research and
engineering in a changing world.

Modification of reports on mechanisms to provide funds to defense
laboratories for research and development of technologies for
military missions (sec. 235)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
existing reporting requirement for funding provided to defense
laboratories under existing authorities to a continuous
requirement as opposed to an annual report. The committee
remains committed to the use of these authorities but believes
that the reporting will be more impactful if continuously
collected and disseminated across a broader audience, including
senior officials, academia, and industry.

Report on Mobile Protected Firepower and Future Vertical Lift (sec.
236)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on
the requirements for Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) and
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) no later than 60 days after the
enactment of this Act.
In light of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), the
committee is concerned the Army is making significant
investments in advance weapons systems that may not be suitable
for a high intensity, combined arms battlefield. Therefore, the
committee would like to understand how MPF and FVL would
improve offensive overmatch against a peer adversary and how
these systems could survive the effects of anti-armor and anti-
aircraft networks established within anti-access, area-denial
defenses. In addition, if the purpose for MPF and FVL is to
support light infantry brigades, the committee requests
additional details of these requirements. Finally, the report
would detail the total number of systems needed, how these
systems will be logistically supported within light formations,
and plans to integrate active protection systems into their
designs.

Improvement of the Air Force supply chain (sec. 237)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to use nontraditional technologies,
such as additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and
other software-intensive capabilities, to increase the
availability of aircraft and decrease backlogs for the
production of spare parts for such aircraft. This provision
would also allow the Assistant Secretary to advance the
qualification and integration of additive manufacturing into
the Air Force supply chain, reduce supply chain risk, and
define workforce development requirements and training for
personnel who implement and support additive manufacturing for
the Air Force. The committee notes that the provision would
also authorize $42.8 million as denoted in the funding tables
accompanying this Act for such purposes.

Review of guidance on blast exposure during training (sec. 238)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review the firing limits of heavy
weapons during training exercises and provide a report no later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act reviewing the
cognitive effects of said blast exposure.

List of technologies and manufacturing capabilities critical to Armed
Forces (sec. 239)

The committee recognizes that maintaining technological
superiority is critical to U.S. military and foreign policy
strategy. Each year, the Department of Defense spends billions
of dollars to develop and acquire advanced technologies in
order to maintain U.S. superiority. While the sale or transfer
of these technologies is permitted and facilitated to allies,
partners, and other foreign parties in order to promote U.S.
national security, foreign policy, and economic interests,
these technologies can also be targets for theft, espionage,
reverse engineering, or illegal export. In an increasingly
globalized and competition-defined world, safeguarding critical
technologies from malfeasance and use by our adversaries or
competitors is of strategic significance to U.S. national
security.
The committee is concerned that the Department has replaced
the Militarily Critical Technologies Program with other
processes to determine which technologies are critical and how
they should be protected to ensure consistency with U.S.
interests. The committee also believes that the outcomes from
the current processes for determining critical technologies may
be underutilized and may fail in their purpose of informing
export decisions if not properly utilized or properly
integrated with other stakeholder agencies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop a list of militarily critical technologies and
manufacturing capabilities. The primary emphasis of this list
should be given to: (1) Research, development, design, and
manufacturing expertise; (2) Research, development, design, and
manufacturing expertise equipment and unique facilities; and
(3) Goods and services associated with or enabled by
sophisticated research, development, operation, application,
manufacturing, or maintenance expertise, which are not
possessed by countries to which exports are controlled and
which, if exported or otherwise transferred, would permit a
significant advance in the military capabilities of any such
country. Upon development no later than December 31, 2019, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to use the list to
guide Department recommendations in any interagency
determinations on exercising export licensing, technology
transfer, or foreign investment.

Report on requiring access to digital technical data in future
acquisitions of combat, combat service, and combat support
systems (sec. 240)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit a report regarding
access to digital technical data, to include that which is
necessary to support the production of three-dimensional
printed parts.

Competitive acquisition strategy for Bradley Fighting Vehicle
transmission replacement (sec. 241)

This provision requires the Secretary of the Army to submit
to the congressional defense committees, not later than
February 15, 2019, a strategy to competitively procure a new
transmission for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle family of
vehicles, to include the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle and the
Paladin Integrated Management artillery system. Additionally,
no funds may be appropriated for a Bradley Fighting Vehicle
replacement transmission until 30 days after the Secretary of
the Army submits its strategy to the congressional defense
committees.

Independent assessment of electronic warfare plans and programs (sec.
242)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the
scientific advisory group ``JASON'' to produce an independent
assessment of: U.S. electronic warfare strategies, programs,
order of battle, and doctrine and adversary strategies,
programs, order of battle, doctrine, including recommendations
for improvement. The committee recognizes that the United
States has a significant comparative military disadvantage
against our peer competitors in aspects of the electronic
warfare mission and in the conduct of joint electro-magnetic
spectrum operations.
The provision would require an independent assessment of
both U.S. and adversary electronic warfare plans and programs.
This should include an assessment of the electronic warfare
strategies, programs, resources and doctrine of the U.S. and
its potential adversaries. For the U.S. it should also include
an assessment of what capabilities non-Department of Defense
entities, to include allies and partners, can provide. Finally
the assessment should include recommendations for improvements.
The provision would require that the JASON scientific
advisory group conduct the assessment but allows for the
Secretary to enter into an agreement with an alternate
assessment group. The assessment shall be completed with a
report of findings and recommendations to the congressional
defense committees by October 1, 2019.

Budget Items

Army

Army defense research sciences

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $276.9
million was for PE 61102A Defense Research Sciences, Army for
fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-term national
security needs.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
on technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
development and new defense systems are built. Basic research
activities fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and
government laboratories. These investments also serve to help
train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may
work on defense technology problems in government, industry,
and academia.
The committee also notes that this particular program
builds fundamental scientific knowledge contributing to the
sustainment of U.S. Army scientific and technological
superiority in land warfighting capability and to solving
military problems related to long-term national security needs.
It also investigates new concepts and technologies for the
Army's future force and provides the means to exploit
scientific breakthroughs and avoid technological surprises.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million, for a total of $284.4 million, in RDT&E Army, PE
61102A, for basic research. The committee directs that these
funds be awarded through well-established and competitive
processes.

Army quantum information sciences

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$276.9 million was for PE 61102A Defense Research Sciences,
Army, for fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-term
national security needs.
The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum
information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines
as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with
near-peer adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become
increasingly critical.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $281.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
61102A, for research on quantum information sciences.

University and industry research centers

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $92.1
million was for PE 61104A University and Industry Research
Centers, Army.
The committee notes that this basic research program
fosters university and industry-based research to provide a
scientific foundation for enabling technologies for future
force capabilities. In particular, this program funds
collaborative technology alliances, which leverage large
investments by the commercial sector in basic research areas
that are of great importance to the Army. The committee is
specifically encouraged by the efforts associated with the Army
Research Laboratory's Open Campus initiative.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $97.1 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
61104A. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
through well-established and competitive processes.

Sensors and electronic survivability

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $32.3
million was for PE 62120A Defense Research Sciences, Army, for
sensors and electronic survivability.
The committee notes that this program accelerates the
Army's work to enhance industrial base capabilities for
improving weapon system performance, speed, fuel efficiency,
and force protection. Such innovations ultimately aim to reduce
part assemblies, decrease lifecycle costs, and enable point-of
need part production.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $37.3 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
62120A, to support tool and material process development.

Aviation technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $64.8
million was for PE 62211A aviation technology.
The committee notes that several of the programs contained
within this program element, such as rotors and vehicle
management technology, engine and drives technologies, and
platform design and structures technologies, involve research
activities that may overlap with aviation research being
performed elsewhere in the Department of Defense. Given this
potential for redundant work, the committee believes that the
level of funds requested for this program element is not
entirely justified.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $59.9 million, in RDT&E Army, PE
62211A, in mission systems and engine and drives coordination,
and recommends that the Army look for opportunities to increase
collaboration and coordination with other Services and research
programs on aviation technology.

Weapons and munitions technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $40.4
million was for PE 62624A weapons and munitions technology.
The Nation is being challenged to maintain dominance across
all domains as our adversaries have continued to develop and
advance their military capabilities that threaten the U.S.
homeland. To address these priorities, the Army Armament
Research, Development and Engineering Center continues to
invest in additive manufacturing technology to rapidly design,
prototype, and manufacture critical novel printed armaments
components. By advancing printed electronics, energetics, and
power sources, size and weight of munition components can be
reduced, freeing up valuable internal space for increased
lethality payloads, support range, and precision guidance to
maximize weapon systems' capabilities while reducing operations
and cost. With collaborations across the Services, the long-
term goal of this effort is to develop the ability to fully
print munitions on a single production line in an ammunition
plant, increasing the U.S. Armed Forces' readiness. This effort
will also demonstrate the ability to print replacement parts,
customizable grenades that will provide both fragmentation and
blast, embedded electronics in clothing, and antennae on
soldiers' helmets.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $42.9 million, in RDT&E Army, PE
62624A, for advanced warheads technology.

Human factors engineering technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $24.1
million was for PE 62716A human factors engineering technology.
Human factors engineering technology seeks ways to provide
warfighters with personalized assessment, education, and
training tools; to identify and implement effective ways to
interface and team warfighters with machines; to use
intelligent, adaptive augmentation to enhance decision making;
and to develop techniques, technologies, and practices to
mitigate critical stressors that impede warfighter protection,
sustainment, and performance. The committee is aware of the
significant possibilities that human factors modeling and
simulation will provide to the DOD when coupled with applied
research in human simulation that utilizes physics-based
survivability analysis models. These vital analytics contribute
to determining the likelihood of mission success as well as
ways to expand training capabilities. The integration of
physics-based human simulation, artificial intelligence, and
clinical knowledge into the Department's warfighter systems has
the potential to rapidly transform mission readiness and
success.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $26.6 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
62716A, for human factors engineering.

Command, Control, and Communications technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $55.0
million was for PE 62782A Command, Control, and Communications
technology.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
continue supporting the development and advancement of
technologies that address: the increasing gaps in position,
navigation, and timing architectural and technological
development; Global Positioning System vulnerabilities; and
adversary navigation warfare capabilities. However, the
committee is concerned that the activities described within
this program element are duplicative across the Services.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $50.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
62782A command, control and communications technology.

Aviation advanced technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$124.9 million was for PE 63003A aviation advanced technology.
The committee notes that, of this amount, the total
requested for platform design and structures system represents
a more than doubling of this project's budget from past fiscal
years. While the committee supports the continued air vehicle
demonstration of critical new technologies, the committee is
concerned that the large increase in funds is not justified by
the project plans.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $119.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63003A, for platform design and structures systems.

Extended Range Cannon Artillery gun

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$102.7 million was for PE 63004A Weapons and Munitions Advanced
Technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million, for
a total of $122.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63004A, for the
acceleration of the development of the Extended Range Cannon
Artillery gun.

Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$119.7 million was for PE 63005A combat vehicle and automotive
advanced technology.
The committee understands that Army Tank Automotive
Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC) spends
hundreds of millions of dollars annually on improving the
performance of vehicles. Fuel reduction is a critical objective
to reduce fuel consumption and reduce the requirements for
large convoys to deliver fuel to deployed forces. The committee
believes that TARDEC should fund an effort to demonstrate leap-
ahead technology for fuel reduction.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $122.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63005A, for modular scalable powertrain.

Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle Prototype

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$119.7 million was for PE 63005A Combat Vehicle and Automotive
Advanced Technology.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to expedite critical capabilities through rapid
prototyping to meet the needs of combatant commanders. The
committee believes that the Army must rapidly develop a
prototype next generation combat vehicle to replace the aging
Bradley fighting vehicle. The committee notes that the Army's
Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center
(TARDEC) has done significant market surveys of the world's
best modern component technologies, fabricated a prototype
hull, and produced a virtual design concept. The committee
believes that the TARDEC should be given all needed funding and
authorities to continue this prototyping effort with technology
developers, operational users, testers, and commercial sector
partners.
The committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million, for
a total of $189.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63005A, for the
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology to prototype
the next generation combat vehicle.

High performance computing modernization program

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $183.3
million was for PE 63461A high performance computing
modernization program.
The committee notes that this program is a Department-wide
asset used by all of the Services and combat support agencies.
Additional funding for this program would increase the research
and development budget toward the level of that appropriated in
fiscal year 2018. The committee notes that research and
development initiatives under this program support Defense
supercomputing resource centers, the Defense Research and
Engineering Network, and software applications. The U.S.
government has spent over $7.0 billion to develop and implement
this unique, world-class national computing asset for the DOD.
It delivers approximately 3.2 billion processor hours and over
3.5 quadrillion floating point operations per second, available
and configured to support the Department's most challenging
problems and analysis of massive and complex datasets.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $188.3 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63461A, for high performance computing.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds for minor Science and
Technology military construction

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $25.8
million was for PE 63734A military engineering advanced
technology.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91), the committee urged the Department of
Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for
science and technology facilities, as well as those used for
test and evaluation. Unfortunately, these projects generally
fall victim to low prioritization, despite their major value to
the Department's mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million, for a total of $33.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63734A, for minor military construction projects for science-
and technology-related facilities. The committee adds these
funds in order to fund the request for Target Assembly Facility
(92422) and Climactic Chamber Building (92344), both minor
military construction projects with science and technology
uses. The committee strongly encourages the Army to ensure
coordination regarding the appropriate planning and design
occurs so that these projects are executable.

Military engineering advanced technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $25.8
million was for PE 63734A military engineering advanced
technology.
The committee notes that centrifuge-based research has
allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to test small-scale
physical models of bridges, piers, and other installations and
resulted in engineering improvements to new facilities.
Additional funding is justified to expand the existing
centrifuge capacity, as this research accelerates engineering
advances with more efficiency and at lower cost.
Further, the committee recognizes the transformative
potential of additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, to the
industrial supply chain and across disciplines. The ability to
use new materials in new ways or to develop new manufacturing
processes has the potential to transform how the Department
does business and significantly increase warfighter system
readiness.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $30.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63734A, for centrifuge research and additive manufacturing.

Position, navigation and timing technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $34.9
million was for PE 63772A advanced tactical computer science
and sensor technology.
Near-peer adversaries, such as the Russian Federation and
People's Republic of China, have taken note of American
dependence on Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) technology
and have heavily invested in navigation warfare technologies
that can congest, degrade, jam, spoof, and eliminate Global
Positioning Systems (GPS). Advancing assured PNT technologies
for operation in a GPS-denied or -degraded environment are
essential to the warfighter's ability to maintain overmatch in
a multi-domain battlefield. This program element addresses the
critical technological gaps that U.S. and coalition operations
face in hostile, GPS-denied environments and will mature PNT
situational awareness analysis tools that deliver PNT integrity
monitoring, dissemination of time-related data, as well as
hardware and software solutions to augment PNT for mounted and
dismounted platforms.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $37.4 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63772A, for PNT research and development.

Command, Control, and Communication advanced technology

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $52.4
million was for PE 63794A Command, Control, and Communication
(C3) advanced technology.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
continue supporting the development and advancement of
technologies that address: the increasing gaps in position,
navigation, and timing architectural and technological
development; Global Positioning System vulnerabilities; and
adversary navigation warfare capabilities. However, the
committee is concerned that the activities described within
this program element are duplicative across the Services.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $47.4 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63794A.

Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional Munition

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which,
$42.0 million was for PE 63639A tank and medium caliber
ammunition.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million, for
a total of $56.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63639A, for the
test and evaluation of the M999 Anti-Personnel Improved
Conventional Munition to verify its compliance with the
Department's policy on cluster munition. This request was
included on the Army's unfunded priorities list.

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Radio Frequency
Exploitation-Electronic Intelligence

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $35.7
million was for PE 63766A Tactical Exploitation of National
Capabilities Radio Frequency Exploitation (TRFE)-Electronic
Intelligence (ELINT).
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to develop
and experiment with prototypes that can be developed into
suitable, survivable, and effective intelligence systems for
support of the Army Field Artillery. The committee is aware of
the plan to modernize the Army Field Artillery. The committee
acknowledges that the development and fielding of Long Range
Precision Fires (LRPF) is the Army's first priority for
modernization. The committee, however, is concerned that Army
Intelligence is not actively developing a capability to provide
effective, suitable, and survivable intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for the Field Artillery.
This ISR must be able to detect, locate, classify, identify,
and confirm long-range targets. This is particularly important
for engagement by long-range cannon and rocket batteries for
attacking enemy targets deep within enemy defensive sectors and
support zones. In light of requirements as detailed in the
National Defense Strategy, the Army must rapidly field
effective, suitable, and survivable ISR capabilities to support
the Army Field Artillery.
The committee encourages the Secretary to exploit existing
hardware and specialized software to support experimentation
and testing. The Secretary should seek to transition as rapidly
as possible to a program of record for an accelerated
production decision.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million, for a total of $43.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
63766A, for TRFE-ELINT.

Indirect Fire Protection Capability

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $51.0
million was for PE 64319A Indirect Fire Protection Capability
Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC).
While the Army continues to deprioritize IFPC, critical
capabilities, such as cruise missile defense of fixed stations,
are nonexistent. In too many respects, the Army Missile Defense
(AMD) forces fielded today fall considerably short of being an
effective foundation for the kind of conflict envisioned by the
National Defense Strategy, and, while air and missile threats
have become more capable and complex, U.S. AMD capabilities
have undergone only a modest modernization.
In order to accelerate and prioritize the IFPC program, the
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million, for a total
of $81.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 64319A.

Mobile Protected Firepower

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$393.6 million was for PE 64645A Mobile Protected Firepower
(MPF).
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and to be better prepared to execute the
National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its
modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities
needed for combined arms maneuver against a peer adversary. The
committee is concerned that the MPF is not suited for a high-
intensity battlefield.
The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million, for a
total of $318.6 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 64645A, for MPF.

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems-EMD (Vehicle Protection Suite
Project)

The committee is concerned with the Army's repeated
decision to ignore the articulated requirement for a vehicle
laser warning system as part of the Abrams IB and the Bradley
2B ECP improvements. The laser warning system provides critical
protection and enhances current operational capabilities
utilized by forward deployed units. Any additional delay in
fielding will only continue to undermine effectiveness and
prolong an increased risk to the Army's ground combat vehicles.
The Committee recommends that the Army realign its procurement
plans and integrate the laser warning system onto the M1 Abrams
Tank and any other forward deploying ground combat vehicles.
The Committee encourages the Army to concentrate on
survivability and incorporate a laser warning sensor suite
system to adequately address the growing threat of anti-tank
guided missiles and laser beam riding guidance systems. The
Committee believes that by focusing on mature, field-tested
protective technology, the active protection system (APS) will
provide a balanced framework that both increases lethality and
protection for the warfighter. As the Army transitions APS onto
ground combat vehicles through the Vehicle Protection System,
it will require the incorporation of a laser warning sensor
suite onto the system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to Army Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, line
117 for Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems-EMD, and an
additional decrease of $9.0 million, for a total decrease of
$324.0 million, from Army Procurement of Weapons & Tracked
Combat Vehicles, line number 6 for the Bradley Program MOD.

Army contract writing system

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $41.9
million was for PE 65047A Army Contract Writing System.
The committee is concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract writing systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $41.9
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
65047A.

Major T&E investment

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $91.8
million was for PE 64759A major test and evaluation investment.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91), this committee urged the Department
of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for
science and technology facilities, as well as those used for
test and evaluation. Unfortunately, these projects generally
fall victim to low prioritization, despite their major value to
the Department's mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million, for a total of $116.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
64759A, for minor military construction projects for science-
and technology-related facilities. The committee adds these
funds in order to fund the request for Armament Test Ops and
Analysis Facility (58467), Guana Peak Site (63191), EMI RDT&E
(87871), HPM Building 21245 (60556), Lift and Tiedown Test
Facility Modernization (91080), Guided Missile Building
(85286), and Braking and Maneuver Facility (60832), all minor
military construction projects with science and technology
uses.
The committee strongly encourages the Army to ensure that
coordination regarding the appropriate planning and design
occurs so that these projects are executable.

High energy laser testing

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which
$306.0 million was for PE 65601A Army Test Ranges and
Facilities.
The committee notes that next generation weapon systems are
being developed by the Department of Defense and its defense
industry partners but the Nation's infrastructure for testing
those weapon systems is antiquated and in need of
modernization. As directed energy weapon systems mature, the
need to validate their performance becomes increasingly
important. The committee notes that the workload and number of
directed energy demonstrations and exercises have increased
significantly since 1975 and the projected workload for fiscal
years 2018 through 2022 is significant.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $321.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
65601A, to accelerate the testing of those weapon systems.

Navy

Navy basic research initiatives

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$119.4 million was for PE 61103N university research
initiatives.
Basic research is critical to the development of next
generation naval capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $124.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
61103N, for basic research. The committee directs that these
funds be awarded through well-established and competitive
processes.

Navy defense research sciences

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$458.7 million was for PE 61153N defense research sciences.
The committee notes that basic research activities serve to
help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who
may work on defense technology problems in government,
industry, and academia.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $463.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
61153N, for basic research. The committee directs that these
funds be awarded through well-established and competitive
processes.

Navy quantum information sciences

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$458.7 million was for PE 61153N defense research sciences.
The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum
information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines
as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with
near-peer adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become
increasingly critical.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $463.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
61153N, for quantum information sciences.

Directed energy applied research

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $14.6
million was for PE 62114N power projection applied research.
The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy
specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and
the potential that it holds for future operational
capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $17.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
62114N, power projection applied research.

Warfighter sustainment applied research

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $56.1
million was for PE 62236N warfighter sustainment applied
research.
The request includes significant growth in Office of Naval
Research Global (ONR Global). Though ONR Global's mission is
undoubtedly important, the committee urges additional
resourcing to go directly toward National Defense Strategy-
aligned priorities as opposed to significantly growing this
organization.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5
million, for a total of $48.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
62236N.

Undersea warfare applied research

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $58.0
million was for PE 62747N undersea warfare applied research.
The committee continues to recognize the importance of
building strong partnerships between Navy research labs,
academia, and shipyards that build our nation's submarines. The
committee encourages the Navy to closely coordinate this effort
with its industrial base partners to ensure that funded
research projects are relevant to specific engineering and
manufacturing needs, as well as defined systems capabilities.
Partnerships with academia should focus on well-defined
submarine and autonomous undersea vehicle research, needs,
accelerated technology transition projects, and workforce
development to help ensure a sustainable industrial base. The
committee encourages projects that aim to reduce manufacturing
costs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million, for a total of $78.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
62747N, undersea warfare applied research.

Innovative Naval prototypes--applied research

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$159.7 million was for PE 62792N applied research in Innovative
Naval Prototypes.
The committee notes that this program element is tasked
with developing leap ahead technologies in game-changing areas
such as cyber, directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and
autonomous systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $164.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
62792N, for directed energy, electronic warfare, and unmanned
and autonomous systems.

USMC advanced technology demonstration

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$150.2 million was for PE 63640M United States Marine Corps
Advanced Technology Demonstration.
The committee notes that, of this amount, a significant
increase is requested for the futures directorate, an
organization tasked with identifying future challenges and
opportunities, developing warfighting concepts, and
comprehensively exploring options to inform the combat
development process to meet the challenges of the future
operating environment. The committee is concerned that such an
increase is unjustified and cannot be absorbed through the work
identified in the project description.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $140.2 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63640M, for unjustified growth.

Innovative Naval prototypes--advanced technology development

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$161.8 million was for PE 63801N advanced technology
development in Innovative Naval Prototypes.
The committee notes that this program element is tasked
with developing leap ahead technologies in game-changing areas
such as cyber, directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and
autonomous systems. The committee notes that undersea warfare
capabilities are a key component of Navy modernization plans.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5
million, for a total of $166.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63801N, for directed energy, electronic warfare, and unmanned
and autonomous systems.

Advanced combat systems technology

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $59.7
million was for PE 63382N advanced combat systems technology.
The committee is encouraged by the projects taken on within
the advanced combat systems program element. The Low-Cost UAV
Swarming Technology (LOCUST) program involves building a
launcher that could send dozens of drones out of a tube in a
swarm designed to ``autonomously overwhelm an adversary.'' The
Heterogeneous Collaborative Unmanned Systems (HCUS)
demonstration is part of the Effector Grid category for small
autonomous systems. HCUS provides autonomous, tactical
monitoring of an adversary's port-sized littoral area for an
extended period of time with capability to apply limited
offensive effects on-demand. The committee urges the Navy to
continue funding these projects and others in this program
element.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $62.2 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63382N, for LOCUST, HCUS, and Innovative Naval Prototype
Transition.

Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $62.7
million was for PE 63502N surface and shallow water mine
countermeasures.
The committee notes that, on April 17, 2018, the Navy
awarded an $83.3 million contract for the design, test, and
deployment of the Barracuda mine neutralization system. If all
options are exercised, the committee understands that this
contract includes options to design and deliver 750 Barracuda
Engineering Development Models (EDMs) with a cumulative
contract value of $362.7 million.
The committee further notes that the Barracuda Preliminary
Design Review and Critical Design Review (CDR) are scheduled
for fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 respectively. The
committee believes that the award of Barracuda EDMs should be
delayed until an approved CDR drawing is achieved.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $26.0
million, for a total of $36.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63502N, for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures.

Advanced submarine system development

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$109.0 million was for PE 63561N advanced submarine system
development.
The committee understands advanced submarine propulsion
development could be accelerated, if additional funds were
available. The committee believes accelerating and expanding
the use of composite materials, where appropriate, could enable
significant warfighting and acquisition advantages in the
construction of submarines.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5
million, for a total of $112.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63561N, for advanced submarine system development.

Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform acceleration

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $89.4
million was for PE 63563N ship concept advanced design.
The committee notes $18.0 million of this request is in
project 4037 for Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform
(CHAMP) industry studies, which will lead to a domestic common-
hull design to replace aging mission-specific sealift and
auxiliary designs. The committee understands that the CHAMP is
a key element of sealift and auxiliary ship recapitalization.
The committee further notes a March 2018 report to Congress
stated, ``CHAMP procurement could accelerate to as early as
fiscal year 2023 with funding and congressional support.'' The
committee further notes that the Navy has stated that $18.0
million would be necessary to support such acceleration.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0
million, for a total of $107.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63563N, for ship concept advanced design.

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$103.6 million was for PE 63596N Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
mission modules.
The committee believes activities supporting the LCS mine
countermeasures mission module should be consolidated in this
program element or in a new LCS mine countermeasures mission
module program element.
Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of: $7.6
million from PE 64127N (surface mine countermeasures), $10.1
million from PE 64126N (littoral airborne mine
countermeasures), and $16.7 million from PE 64028N (small and
medium unmanned undersea vehicles).
Additionally, the committee notes the USS Jackson (LCS-6)
surface-to-surface missile module test has been deferred and
recommends a decrease of $5.0 million.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $29.4
million, for a total of $133.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
63596N, for LCS mission modules.

Land attack technology

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $15.5
million was for PE 63795N land attack technology.
The committee notes a program delay and no future years
funding for the Gun Launched Guided Projectile, despite plans
to publish a Request for Proposals in fiscal year 2019 for
Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.5
million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63795N, for
land attack technology.

F/A-18 infrared search and track

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$108.7 million was for PE 64014N F/A-18 infrared search and
track (IRST).
The committee understands that additional funding could
reduce risk in operational testing of IRST Block II by
restoring lab and flight tests that were deferred due to prior
budget reductions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.0
million, for a total of $132.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64014N, for F/A-18 IRST Block II testing.

Small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $16.7
million was for PE 64028N small and medium unmanned undersea
vehicles.
The committee notes that this program element only includes
activities related to the Knifefish unmanned underwater
vehicle, which is part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine
countermeasures mission module. The committee believes
activities related to LCS mine countermeasures mission modules
should be consolidated in PE 63596N (LCS mission modules) or in
a new LCS mine countermeasures mission module program element.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.7
million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64028N, for
small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles and a transfer of
the $16.7 million decrease to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N.

Large unmanned undersea vehicles

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $92.6
million was for PE 64031N large unmanned underwater vehicles.
The committee understands that the $21.2 million is early-
to-need based on prior year congressional funding reductions.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $21.2
million, for a total of $71.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64031N, for large unmanned underwater vehicles.

Littoral airborne mine countermeasures

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $17.6
million was for PE 64126N littoral airborne mine
countermeasures.
The committee notes this program element includes $10.1
million in funds related to the Coastal Battlefield
Reconnaissance and Analysis airborne mine countermeasures
system, which is part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine
countermeasures mission module. The committee believes
activities related to LCS mine countermeasures mission modules
should be consolidated in PE 63596N (LCS mission modules) or in
a new LCS mine countermeasures mission module program element.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.1
million, for a total of $7.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64126N, for littoral airborne mine countermeasures and a
transfer of this $10.1 million to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N.

Surface mine countermeasures

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $18.2
million was for PE 64127N surface mine countermeasures.
The committee notes that this program element includes $7.6
million in funds related to the AN/AQS-20 sonar system, which
is part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures
mission module. The committee believes activities related to
LCS mine countermeasures mission modules should be consolidated
in PE 63596N (LCS mission modules) or in a new LCS mine
countermeasures mission module program element.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.6
million, for a total of $10.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64127N, surface mine countermeasures and a transfer of the $7.6
million decrease to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N.

AV-B Aircraft--Engineering Development

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $46.3
million was for PE 64214M AV-8B Aircraft--Engineering
Development.
The committee notes that the Marine Corps plans to divest
of the AV-8B by 2027 and replace it with the F-35B and that
this transition is well underway. The committee also notes
that, of the $46.3 million requested in this budget line, $13.9
million is for engine safety and reliability improvements and
engineering change proposals. The remaining $32.3 million
requested is for weapons and avionics upgrades. The AV-8
platform was first fielded in the Marine Corps in the early
1970s, and the committee has concerns about continued
investment in an aircraft that has limited utility against a
peer adversary. Rather than continue to invest in a platform
that, even in upgraded form, will not add meaningful capability
to the joint force, the committee believes that these funds
would be better used elsewhere to support modernization
initiatives across the force.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.2
million, for a total of $30.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64214M, for AV-8B Aircraft--Engineering Development.

Physiological episode safety improvements

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $21.0
million was for PE 64264N for Air Crew Systems Development.
The committee is concerned that U.S. military aircraft
currently do not possess the ability to monitor the
physiological status of aircrew and autonomously act to protect
them in case of hypoxia or other physiological events. In
response to physiological episodes in Navy aircraft, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration has recommended
an advanced safety sensor that would monitor and record the
composition of gases inhaled and exhaled by the pilot. These
types of sensors have been developed by the Air Force Research
Laboratory, and the committee believes that the Department of
Defense should explore fielding them to all relevant Department
aircraft. The committee believes that further integration of
these breathing sensors into a fully autonomous life support
system, which monitors the pilot's physiological state and
automatically reacts to prevent mishaps, should be pursued.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $31.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64264N, Air Crew Systems Development, for physiological episode
safety improvements.

EA-18G cognitive electronic warfare

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$147.4 million was for PE 64269N EA-18 Squadrons.
The committee recognizes the growing importance of
electronic warfare and its critical role in any conflict with a
peer or near-peer adversary. The committee believes that it is
imperative that the United States maintains relevant and
effective electronic warfare capabilities. Moving forward, the
ability to sense and react to the electromagnetic spectrum will
be key to success in any conflict with a peer competitor.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $95.3
million, for a total of $242.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64269N, for Reactive Electronic Attack Measures. This item was
included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities
list.

EA-18G offensive airborne electronic attack special mission pod

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $89.8
million was for PE 64270N Electronic Warfare Development.
The committee recognizes the growing importance of
electronic warfare and its critical role in any conflict with a
peer or near-peer adversary. The EA-18G special mission pod is
intended to provide a special purpose mission pod to address
emergent PACOM operational gaps. The committee believes that it
is imperative that the United States maintains relevant and
effective electronic warfare capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $31.6
million, for a total of $121.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64270N, for EA-18G offensive airborne electronic attack pod.
This item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priorities list.

LPD-17 class systems integration

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $0.9
million was for PE 64311N LPD-17 class systems integration.
The committee understands that San Antonio-class (LPD-17)
amphibious ships were designed to accommodate a 16-cell Mark-41
Vertical Launch System (VLS), which would increase lethality
through employment of a variety of munitions, including
Tomahawk, Enhanced Sea Sparrow, and Standard missiles.
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy and
Commandant of the Marine Corps testified on April 19, 2018,
before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, that they
supported installation of VLS on Flight II LPD-17 class ships.
The committee further understands that approximately $50.0
million would be required to complete the non-recurring
engineering necessary to incorporate VLS on LPD-17 class ships.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million, for a total of $50.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64311N, for LPD-17 class systems integration.

SM-6 Block 1B 21 inch rocket motor

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$165.9 million was for PE 64366N Standard Missile improvements.
The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million, for
a total of $146.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64366, for the 21
inch rocket motor. This is on the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priorities list.

Amphibious assault ship acceleration

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $60.1
million was for PE 64567N ship contract design and live fire
test and evaluation.
The committee remains concerned with the Navy procurement
profile for large deck amphibious assault ships, which includes
a span of 7 years until the next large deck amphibious assault
ship (LHA-9) is procured in 2024.
The committee notes that efficiencies could be gained by
reducing this span, which could enable a steadier workforce
with an increased learning curve, material and equipment
suppliers on more reliable and fixed delivery contracts, and a
more effective continuous improvement schedule.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate
procurement of LHA-9 to not later than 2021 and understands
that $6.0 million is required for planning to support a fiscal
year 2021 detailed design and construction award for LHA-9.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million, for a total of $66.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
64567N, for ship contract design and live fire test and
evaluation.

Electronic Procurement System

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$268.6 million was for PE 65013N Information Technology
Development, including $26.3 million for Electronic Procurement
System.
The committee is concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract writing systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $26.3
million, for a total of $242.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
65013N.

Navy Information Technology Systems Development

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$268.6 million was for PE 65013N Information Technology
Development, including $63.8 million for Navy Personnel and Pay
(NP2).
The committee is concerned about the lengthy timeline for
delivery of capability to users. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to adopt modern software development
practices that deliver capabilities to users in shorter
increments and timelines. Best practices for incremental
development call for delivering functional capabilities to the
end-user at intervals of 6 months or less. The acquisition
strategy includes a software development approach using a
commercial off-the-shelf solution. However, NP2 does not plan
to deliver any capability to users until fiscal year 2020 with
the next increment of capability planned for 2 years later. The
committee feels that the use of modern, commercial acquisition
practices is especially important to support critical
management and personnel and pay activities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $63.8
million, for a total of $204.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
65013N.

Management, technical, and international support

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $87.6
million was for PE 65853N management, technical, and
international support.
The committee notes several projects contain insufficient
budget justification and unjustified cost growth.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.0
million, for a total of $78.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
65853N, for management, technical, and international support.

Maritime Strike Tomahawk

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$282.4 million was for PE 24229N for Tomahawk missiles and the
Tomahawk Mission Planning Center.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million, for a
total of $291.1 million, in PE 24229N of RDT&E, Navy, to
restore full funding and to maintain fiscal year 2021 initial
operational capability.

Integrated surveillance system

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $37.0
million was for PE 24311N integrated surveillance system.
The committee notes that, since fiscal year 2015, the Navy
has utilized Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems
(TRAPS) in anti-submarine warfare missions. The committee
understands that these deployable systems have performed
satisfactorily and comprise a critical element of the Navy's
overall integrated undersea surveillance system. The committee
is concerned capability or capacity gaps will be created if
additional TRAPS units are not procured in fiscal year 2019.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million, for a total of $72.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
24311N, for integrated surveillance system.

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile extended range

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$120.8 million was for PE 25601N for HARM Improvements, of
which $99.2 million is for development of the extended range
(ER) version of the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile
(AARGM).
The committee notes that the Navy plans to create an
extended range version of the AARGM Block I, with no
modification to the missile system except for the rocket motor.
The AARGM Block I is currently in production. The committee
also notes that the fiscal year 2017 annual report of the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) recently
stated that the AARGM Block I was ``not adequate to support an
evaluation of operational effectiveness or survivability.''
Furthermore, the report stated that the AARGM Block I
``provides limited employment capability against advanced
threat surface-to-air radar systems.''
While longer range is an important factor when competing
against near-peer adversaries, the committee believes that the
Navy should not extend the range of the AARGM until the missile
seeker is effective against ``advanced threat surface-to-air
radar systems.'' The committee supports the effort to design an
anti-radiation missile that is relevant against a peer
adversary. However, given DOT&E's findings on the suitability
of AARGM Block I, the committee believes that simply extending
the range will not be sufficient and recommends that the Navy
find a more comprehensive solution to this problem.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $99.2
million, for a total of $21.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
25601N, in order to pause development of the AARGM ER pending a
Navy review of requirements.

Tactical Targeting Network Technology

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$104.7 million was for PE 25604N for Tactical Data Links.
The committee recognizes the increasing importance of data
links to our warfighting concepts of operations and combat
effectiveness. The Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT)
data link supports the Navy's Naval Integrated Fire Control--
Counter Air and Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare. The committee
believes that it is imperative that the Department accelerate
the fielding of technologies, such as TTNT, that enhance our
capabilities in any conflict with a peer or near-peer
adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million, for a total of $116.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE
25604N, to accelerate the TTNT capability. This item was
included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities
list.

F/A-18 E/F engine enhancements

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$121.8 million was for PE 25633N for Aviation Improvements.
The committee recognizes that the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
will remain a critical element of the carrier air wing for the
foreseeable future. The committee supports the Navy's efforts
to maintain the Super Hornet's relevance and effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $136.8 million in RDT&E, Navy, PE
25633N, to accelerate the design and development of F/A-18 E/F
Super Hornet engine enhancements to address range, speed,
efficiency, and survivability improvements. This item was
included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities
list.

Amphibious Assault Vehicle

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $22.6
million was for PE 26629M Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV).
The committee understands that the Amphibious Assault
Vehicle (AAV) Product Improvement Program (PIP)/Survivability
Upgrade Program (SUP) will produce marginal improvements in the
vehicle's overall survivability and that few of the proposed
enhancements address threats the vehicle may face in conflict
against a peer adversary. The AAV is a decades-old platform
with legacy amphibious and combat capabilities that do not meet
the needs of modern Marine amphibious forcible entry
operations. Rather than continue to invest in a vehicle that,
even in upgraded form, will not provide adequate
maneuverability, survivability, or ship-to-shore performance,
the committee believes these funds would be better used
elsewhere to support modernization initiatives across the
force.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.6
million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 26629M, for
the Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Air Force

Air Force defense research sciences

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$384.3 million was for PE 61102F defense research sciences.
The committee notes that basic research investments serve
to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers
who may work on defense technology problems in government,
industry, and academia.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $389.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
61102F for basic research. The committee directs that these
funds be awarded through well-established and competitive
processes.

Air Force quantum information sciences

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$384.3 million was for PE 61102F defense research sciences.
The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum
information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines
as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In the National Defense
Strategy's environment of competition with near-peer
adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become
increasingly critical. The committee urges the inclusion of
research on the underlying mathematics of quantum enabled
systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $389.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
61102F, for quantum information sciences.

High energy laser research initiatives

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$14.5 million was for PE 61108F high energy laser research
initiatives.
The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy
specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and
the potential that it holds for future operational
capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $17.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
61108F.

Materials

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$125.3 million was for PE 62102F materials.
The committee supports the Air Force's efforts to improve
structural metallic materials used in high priority aerospace
and defense missions. The use of high energy synchrotron x-rays
is helping design engineers to better understand which
materials are best suited for military performance requirements
and to develop optimal and efficient manufacturing processes
for these novel materials. It is critical that Air Force and
other Department of Defense scientists engage in hands-on
experiential learning to train more materials scientists and
engineers in these capabilities, including the creation and
implementation of high-fidelity simulations and advanced data-
science methods to support development of next-generation
weapons systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million, for a total of $129.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62102F, in support of the Air Force's efforts to improve
materials used in high priority aerospace and defense missions.

Aerospace vehicle technologies

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$130.5 million was for PE 62201F aerospace vehicle
technologies.
The committee notes that hypersonic technologies are a key
component of the National Defense Strategy but is concerned
that investment has been insufficient to support test
infrastructure, advanced testing techniques, and the testing
workforce. Without these investments, it is unlikely that
hypersonic systems will achieve operational status.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $135.5 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE
62201F, for high-speed systems technology, including hypersonic
vehicle structures.

Affordable responsive modular rocket

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$190.9 million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion.
The committee notes the Air Force's participation in the
initiative ``Rocket Propulsion for the 21st Century'' (RP-21),
which serves as a focal point for the rocket propulsion
development community. The committee applauds the interagency
involvement in this effort. Within this effort, the exploration
of next generation liquid rocket engine concepts focused on
modularity are particularly valuable.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $205.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62203F, for the affordable responsive modular rocket.

Multi-mode propulsion applied research

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$190.9 million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion.
One of the efforts within ``Rocket Propulsion for the 21st
Century'' (RP-21) is directed at developing technologies for
high thrust chemical and electric thrusters to utilize a common
propellant and tank. The committee urges the Air Force to
accelerate these efforts for flight demonstration.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million, for a total of $193.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62203F, for multi-mode propulsion.

Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$190.9 million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion.
The committee notes the importance, within the Air Force's
rocket propulsion efforts, of continuous flow processing
technology in order to reduce the development time of a new
motor. The committee believes that such efforts should be
accelerated to the extent practicable.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $192.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62203F, for the Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand (SRM-POD)
program.

Aerospace propulsion

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$190.9 million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion.
The committee notes that the Air Force must continue
development of critical next-generation engine programs that
require both significant research and development funding and
long-lead times for propulsion-system development. Advanced
propulsion research is critical to meeting the requirements of
advanced weapon systems concepts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $193.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62203F, for turbine engine technology development.

Aerospace sensors

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$166.5 million was for PE 62204F aerospace sensors.
The committee is concerned with the growth in this year's
request for electronic component technology, electro-optical
sensors and countermeasures technology and radio frequency
sensors and countermeasures. Though the committee recognizes
the importance of these technologies for warfare in contested
environments, the committee urges the Air Force to take
advantage of similar work occurring elsewhere in the Department
of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5
million, for a total of $159.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62204F.

Skywave Technologies Laboratory

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$141.9 million was for PE 62605F directed energy technology.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91), this committee urged the Department
of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for
science and technology facilities, as well as those used for
test and evaluation. Unfortunately, these projects generally
fall victim to low prioritization, despite their major value to
the Department's mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million, for a total of $145.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62605F, for minor military construction. The committee adds
these funds in order to fund the request for the Skywave
Technologies Laboratory. The committee strongly encourages the
Air Force to ensure that coordination regarding the appropriate
planning and design occurs so that these projects are
executable.

High energy laser research

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$43.4 million was for PE 62890F high energy laser research.
The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy
specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and
the potential that it holds for future operational
capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $45.9 million, in RDT&E Air Force, PE
62890F.

High powered microwave research

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$43.4 million was for PE 62890F high energy laser research.
The committee recognizes the importance of high powered
microwave research as a component of directed energy
technologies. Another provision in this Act specifically
authorizes the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to
conduct this research along with its other duties.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $53.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
62890F for high powered microwave research.

Advanced materials for research

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$34.4 million was for PE 63112F advanced materials for weapons
systems.
Though the committee recognizes the importance of materials
development for critical systems, the committee believes that
alternative approaches may be needed to ensure successful
transition of these technologies into operational systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $29.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63112F, advanced materials for weapons systems.

Materials affordability

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$34.4 million was for PE 63112F advanced materials for weapons
systems.
The Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) is a public-
private partnership that has produced innovative metals
technology for use in a variety of Department of Defense
systems over the past 19 years. The MAI has demonstrated
significant improvements in the manufacture of specialty metals
for aerospace applications for both the government and
industry, and it provides the warfighter with metals of
improved strength and durability, often at a reduced cost. This
highly-successful initiative has resulted in over 100 current
or planned insertions of new technology into systems Defense-
wide with a tenfold return on total government investment (a
total of $2.4 billion).
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $36.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63112F, for materials affordability.

Sustainment in science and technology

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$15.1 million was for PE 63199F sustainment in science and
technology.
The committee notes that sustainment science and technology
are directed at creating sustainable technologies, improving
sustainment-related tools and processes, and developing
technologies to fundamentally change sustainment missions.
Given ongoing concerns about sustainment costs, the committee
endorses this important mission and recommends that the Air
Force continue to increase resourcing in this area.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million, for a total of $16.1 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63199F, to develop sustainment technologies to improve
component design, replacement, and concepts for performance
improvement and reduced maintenance burden.

Aerospace technology development and demonstration increase for
operational energy capability improvements

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$121.0 million was for the PE 63211F Aerospace Technology
Development/Demonstration.
The committee continues to recognize the urgent requirement
to constantly innovate and improve combat capability and
operational effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and
competitive operational energy science and technology
investments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for a total of $131.0 million, in
PE 63211F, for Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration.
Specifically, the committee strongly encourages the Air
Force to use the increase to fund design and manufacturing of
aircraft finlets, micro-vanes, and high pressure compressor
blade coatings that have demonstrated reduced drag, evinced
fuel savings, and decreased maintenance requirements.

Aerospace propulsion and power technology

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$115.4 million was for PE 63216F aerospace propulsion and power
technology.
The Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator project develops
and demonstrates core engine technologies for small turbines
utilized in current and future aircraft, missile, and remotely
piloted aircraft propulsion systems. The project develops and
demonstrates technology to reduce cost of ownership by half
while improving mission flexibility and fuel consumption to
increase range. It will also pave the way for providing much-
needed competition where there currently is none. The committee
strongly encourages the commander of AFMC to fund technologies
that lead to low-cost, high-performance turbofan engines of up
to 1,200 pounds of thrust.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million, for a total of $124.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63216F.

Multi-mode propulsion advanced technology development

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$115.5 million was for PE 63216F aerospace technology
development and demonstration.
One of the efforts within ``Rocket Propulsion for the 21st
Century'' (RP-21) is directed at developing technologies for
high thrust chemical and electric thrusters to utilize a common
propellant and tank. The committee particularly notes the
potential for this work to decrease servicing complexity for
on-orbit refueling and to afford space operators maximum
mission flexibility to respond to unplanned events.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $120.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63216F, for multi-mode propulsion.

Technology for the sustainment of strategic systems

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$115.5 million was for PE 63216F aerospace technology
development and demonstration.
The committee urges the Air Force to continue to perform
altitude demonstrations at the Air Force Research Laboratory's
high altitude facility in order to develop integrated post-
boost phase technologies. These systems can support strategic
systems during storage, transportation, on alert, and during
boost, and post-boost launch. Similar technologies are also
being developed to reduce lifetime prediction uncertainty for
individual rocket motors.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $125.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63216F, for technology for sustainment of strategic systems.

Electronic combat technology

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$55.3 million was for PE 63270F electronic combat technology.
The committee supports the collaboration between the
Defense Digital Service and the Air Force Research Laboratory
to improve Air Force software engineering capabilities and to
address high priority technical issues plaguing Air Force
information technology acquisition programs and deployed
systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $60.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63270F, for RF/EO/IR warning and countermeasures.

Demonstrator Laser Weapons System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$43.4 million was for PE 63605F advanced weapons technology.
The committee is aware that collaboration between industry,
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Air
Force Research Laboratory has already produced the electric
Laser Weapon System to detect, identify, and defeat unmanned
aircraft system and cruise missile threats. The Demonstrator
Laser Weapon System was designed to be the premier facility for
evaluating the efficacy of lasers against a variety of live
fire targets. The committee notes that the system can be
upgraded to provide a more robust development testbed to prove
out the tactics, techniques, and procedures for using a laser
weapon for base defense. The testbed will also help the Air
Force to refine procedures for defending against adversary
unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $53.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
63605F, for continued development of the demonstrator laser
weapon system.

Prototype Tanker

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$28.4 million was for PE 64776F Deployment and Distribution
Enterprise R&D.
The committee is concerned about the growing threat to
large high-value aircraft in contested environments. The KC-135
and hopefully the KC-46A in the near future provide greater
operational availability and range for a broad swath of the
joint force's aerial power projection and mobility portfolios.
However, these assets are manned and increasingly difficult to
protect. The committee believes, given the increasingly
challenging operating environments our potential adversaries
are presenting, it is prudent to explore options for optionally
unmanned and more survivable tankers that could operate
autonomously as part of a large, dispersed logistics fleet that
could sustain attrition in conflict. Consequently, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prototype a
contested environment tanker.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $38.4 million in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64776F, for prototyping a contested environment tanker.

Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$1.2 billion was for PE 64858F Tech Transition Program.
The committee, in consultation with the Air Force, believes
this program can be accelerated.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64858F, Tech Transition Program.

Technology transition program

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$1.2 billion was for PE 64858F technology transition.
The committee supports the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics intent to
accelerate the Air Force Research Laboratory's Low-Cost
Attritable Aircraft Technology (using technology from the
Strategic Capability Office's Avatar program) for collaborative
pairing with manned platforms, potentially including the F-35.
The committee views the combined application of commercial
``smart'' technology, autonomy, and artificial intelligence as
imperative for solving current military challenges. Teams of
low-cost collaborative systems provide new mechanisms to ensure
survivability and mission success without leveraging exquisite
technology and its associated high cost and long development
timelines.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0
million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64858F, for low cost attributable aircraft prototype
transition.

Air Force supply chain innovation

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$1.2 billion was for PE 64858F technology transition.
The committee is supportive of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics'
initiative to focus resources on increasing innovation within
the Air Force's supply chain. Though constituting approximately
70% of the Air Force's budget, sustainment receives few
resources for new technology development--predictive analytics,
agile manufacturing, digital engineering, and artificial
intelligence--to drive down costs. Given current aircraft
availability shortfalls, the committee urges the Air Force to
focus on the consolidation of technology development,
applications to current availability challenges, and
transitioning to the depots, all while developing and equipping
the sustainment workforce.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $42.8
million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64858F, for Air Force supply chain innovation.

Contracting Information Technology System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$17.6 million was for PE 91410F Contracting Information
Technology System.
The committee is concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract writing systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.6
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
91410F.

Advanced Battle Management System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$207.7 million was for PE 64281F Tactical Data Networks
Enterprise.
As part of its movement towards an Advanced Battle
Management System, the Air Force has indicated the need to
increase the capability of its communications and data links.
The committee strongly supports efforts to increase the
capability of our information links. The committee also
strongly supports efforts to accelerate capabilities that will
make our forces more relevant and effective at deterring, and,
if necessary, defeating a peer adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million, for a total of $257.7 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64281F, for Agile Communications, High Capacity Backbone and
Link 16 Enhancements in order to accelerate the Advanced Battle
Management System.

JSTARS recap radar

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$0.0 was for PE 37581F for the JSTARS Recapitalization.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force's decision to
cancel the JSTARS Recapitalization program leaves in limbo the
continued development of the Recap radar, for which the Air
Force has spent years and millions of dollars bringing to its
current maturity. The committee supports the Air Force's move
to an Advanced Battle Management System but is apprehensive
about the Air Force's proposal to divest existing capability in
the current JSTARS aircraft while its plan for future
capability remains aspirational. The risk, if not likelihood,
of a significant capability gap warrants mitigation.
As the Air Force evolves its view of what the Advanced
Battle Management System entails and begins to bring capability
online, the committee believes that it is prudent to continue
development of the Recap radar to explore further potential
uses and provide the Air Force with options.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million, for a total of $50.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
37581F, for continued Ground Moving Target Indicator radar
development.

Major Test and Evaluation Management

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$91.8 million was for PE 64759F, Major Test and Evaluation
(T&E) Investment.
The committee notes the importance of test and evaluation
infrastructure to bring mature capabilities to the warfighter.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $106.8 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
64759F, to fund improvements for Air Force test infrastructure.

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$47.3 million was for PE 65018F Air Force Integrated Personnel
and Pay System (AF-IPPS).
The committee is concerned about the lengthy timeline for
delivery of capability to users. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to adopt modern software development
practices that deliver capabilities to users in shorter
increments and timelines. Best practices for incremental
development call for delivering functional capabilities to the
end-user at intervals of 6 months or less. However AF-IPPS does
not plan to delivery any capability to users until fiscal year
2021. The committee feels that the use of modern, commercial
acquisition practices is especially important to support
critical management, personnel and pay activities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.1
million, for a total of $13.2 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
65018F.

B-52

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$280.4 million was for PE 11113F for B-52 system improvements.
The Air Force has requested a transfer of $14.8 million
from Aviation Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to this PE.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.8
million, for a total of $295.2 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
11113F, for B-52 system improvements.

Airborne Early Warning and Control System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$120.7 million was for PE 27417F for the Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS).
As part of its movement towards an Advanced Battle
Management System, the Air Force has indicated the need to
increase the capability of its AWACS aircraft through advanced
communications, networking, and sensor capabilities. The
committee believes these capabilities should be accelerated.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $130.7 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
27417F for E-3 Advanced Battle Management and Surveillance
Bridge Capabilities.

Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$50.9 million was for PE 78055F Maintenance, Repair, and
Overhaul System.
The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery
timeline for this program, going multiple years without
delivering capability to the end-user. The committee notes that
for many IT programs and activities the Department has been
slow to adopt modern, commercial ``agile'' acquisition
practices. In many programs the Department is still using dated
and slower IT development and deployment practices--which
usually end up being more costly and delivering out-of-date
software products.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.1
million, for a total of $15.8 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
78055F.

Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System Increment 2

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$99.7 million was for PE 91538F Financial Management
Information Systems Development, including $11.8 million for
Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System Increment Two.
The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery
timeline for this program, going multiple years without
delivering capability to the end-user. The committee notes that
for many information technology (IT) programs and activities
the Department has been slow to adopt modern, commercial
``agile'' acquisition practices. In many programs the
Department is still using dated and slower IT development and
deployment practices--which usually end up being more costly
and delivering out-of-date software products.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.8
million, for a total of $87.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
91538F.

Defense Wide

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency defense research sciences

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $422.1 million was for PE 61101E defense research
sciences.
The committee recognizes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's defense research sciences program element
provides the technical foundation for long-term national
security through the discovery of new phenomena and exploration
for defense applications. The committee is especially
encouraged by the materials sciences work in this activity.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $427.1 million, in RDT&E Defense-wide,
PE 61101E.

Critical materials

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $422.1 million was for PE 61101E defense research
sciences.
The committee recognizes the work done by the Critical
Materials Institute (CMI) to focus on technologies that make
better use of rare earth materials and eliminate the need for
rare earth materials that are subject to supply disruptions.
Therefore, the committee urges the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency to work closely with entities such as CMI to
further its own research on critical materials related to
Department of Defense needs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $424.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 61101E, for critical materials research.

Defense-wide quantum information sciences

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $42.7 million was for PE 61110D8Z basic research
initiatives.
The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum
information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines
as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with
near-peer adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become
increasingly critical.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $49.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 61110D8Z, for quantum information sciences.

Basic research initiatives

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $42.7 million was for PE 61110D8Z basic research
initiatives.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
development and new defense systems are built. Basic research
activities fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and
government laboratories. These investments also serve to help
train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may
work on defense technology problems in government, industry,
and academia.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $49.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 61110D8Z.

Activities to determine more effective personal protective equipment
against blast injury

The budget request included $708.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for
Basic Research, of which $47.8 million was for PE 61117E Basic
Operational Medical Research Science.
The committee remains concerned about the prevalence of
mild and severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) among
servicemembers. Servicemembers exposed to repetitive concussive
events or severe TBI due to repeated blasts and blast injuries
are at high risk for long-term negative consequences to brain
health, including the development of chronic neuro-degenerative
disease.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $57.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for Basic Research, PE 61117E, for Basic Operational Medical
Research Science to conduct activities to determine the most
effective personal protective equipment against blast injury.
The provision authorizing such activities is contained in this
title.

Joint munitions program

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $19.1 million was for PE 62000D8Z joint munitions
program.
The committee is encouraged by the program element's
mission of developing joint enabling technologies that can be
used by the Program Executive Officers as they develop their
specific weapon programs. As expressed in the National Defense
Strategy, future conflicts will increasingly require a joint
perspective in these types of technology areas.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $21.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 62000D8Z, for insensitive munitions.

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
priorities

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $60.6 million was for PE 62251D8Z applied research for
the advancement of science and technology priorities.
Though the committee is supportive of prototyping and early
launch of science and technology applied research projects to
shape investments, the committee is concerned with the large
growth for this program element, given that the request was
$11.0 million lower in the previous budget request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5
million, for a total of $53.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 62251D8Z.

Tactical technology

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $335.4 million was for PE 62702E tactical technology.
In accordance with the National Defense Strategy, the
committee is supportive of developing new concepts and
technologies to enhance the next generation of tactical
systems. The committee urges the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency to continue efforts in Advanced Tactical
Technology and Aeronautics Technology.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $337.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 62702E.

Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $335.4 million was for PE 62702E tactical technology.
The committee notes that a number of efforts in this
program element are proposed for significant growth at a time
when similar activities in the Services and the Strategic
Capabilities Office are also growing. At the same time, the
committee is concerned that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency appears to be undertaking some of these efforts
without sufficient coordination with the defense research
community.
The committee notes particularly that the Multi-Azimuth
Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES),
while potentially capable, faces an uncertain transition future
due to the complexity involved with installation deployment and
practical limitations on its use. In addition, the committee
notes that the Navy has not yet signed on as a transition
partner despite the potential application to naval warfare.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $330.4 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 62702E, for MAD-FIRES.

Materials and biological technology

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $226.8 million was for PE 62715E materials and biological
technology.
The committee is concerned with the lack of transition
plans for some technologies in Functional Materials and Devices
and by the significant growth within Accelerating Discovery and
Innovation without a clear justification.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million, for a total of $211.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 62715E.

Combating terrorism technology support

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $125.2 million was for PE 63122D8Z combating terrorism
technology support.
Despite recognizing the immense contributions of this
program element to technological advancements over the past
decades, the committee recognizes that in order to embrace the
strategic goals laid out by the National Defense Strategy,
funding for science and technology should move toward potential
applications to near-peer adversaries. Further, the committee
is concerned with the large growth between the budget request
for the previous year and this year's request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.0
million, for a total of $111.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63122D8Z.

Advanced aerospace systems

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $227.6 million was for PE 63286E advanced aerospace
systems.
At his confirmation hearing, the recently confirmed Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering emphasized
the urgent need for American progress on hypersonic weapons.
This program element includes the Hypersonic Air-breathing
Weapon Concept as a joint Air Force and Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) effort, in addition to
Tactical Boost Glide, another joint Air Force and DARPA effort.
Both of these technologies represent promising progress, and
the committee urges the DARPA to increase its focus on their
development.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $232.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63286E.

Blackjack

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $15.0 million was for PE 63287E Blackjack program.
The committee notes that funding for a Blackjack on-orbit
demonstration is the Air Force's highest unfunded priority. The
committee believes that the successful demonstration of a
proliferated constellation of satellites in Low Earth Orbit
would have profound implications for the resiliency and
survivability of critical space missions.
The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million, for
a total of $125.0 million, in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE 63287E, to accelerate a
cooperative on-orbit demonstration of the co-orbiting military
missile warning constellation embedded within the commercial
LEO mega-constellation and space-cloud network infrastructure.
The committee directs the Air Force and DARPA to work with the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to assess the potential for
meeting MDA's space-based requirements on such a constellation.

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $29.3 million was for PE 63342D8W Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental (DIUx).
In its short tenure, DIUx has filled a critical niche
between emerging technology firms and the Department of
Defense. Over the coming year, the committee urges DIUx to
consider the metrics by which it measures its success and its
role in the full research and engineering enterprise that the
Department operates.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $0.5
million, for a total of $29.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63342D8W.

Networked communications capabilities

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $12.7 million was for PE 63662D8Z networked
communications capabilities.
Despite the importance of this mission, the committee is
concerned about potential duplication of this program element's
activities with those of the Services and urges closer
coordination with similar programs instead of more funding
within this line.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5
million, for a total of $5.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63662D8Z.

Enhancing cybersecurity for small vendors

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $114.6 million was for PE 63680D8Z, the Defense-wide
manufacturing science and technology program.
Cyber vulnerabilities faced by the defense industrial base
are a threat to national security. If cybersecurity
vulnerabilities remain unaddressed, defense supply chains face
a higher likelihood of harboring serious and exploitable
vulnerabilities. Moreover, many small firms have a significant
lack of awareness of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
cybersecurity requirements, which all DOD suppliers must meet.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $119.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63680D8Z, for cybersecurity protection of small vendors.

Defense-wide manufacturing science and technology program

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $114.6 million was for PE 63680D8Z Defense-wide
manufacturing science and technology program.
The Advanced Electronics and Optics program is a series of
efforts addressing advanced manufacturing technologies with a
wide range of applications. Additional funds can support
development of advanced thin-film filters for eyewear,
providing laser protection and rapid adjustment to changing
light, improving warfighter visibility and adaptability.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $116.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63680D8Z, for eye protection systems.

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology program

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $49.7 million was for PE 63680S manufacturing technology.
The committee notes the critical importance of improving
manufacturing capability through a product's life cycle and
applauds this program for providing low-risk technology
implementation for small businesses and defense unique
suppliers. The program's focus on maintaining viable supply
sources and improving manufacturing processes have resulted in
particularly large savings for the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $52.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63680S.

Defense Logistics Agency generic logistics research and development
technology demonstrations

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $11.8 million was for PE 63712S generic logistics
research and development technology demonstrations.
The committee notes the critical importance of logistics,
especially given the National Defense Strategy's assumption
that future operating environments will be contested. The
committee urges prototyping and demonstrations in order to
quickly test capabilities that might hold promise for future
operational concepts.
The committee notes that for many years the Department of
Defense has been developing various innovative technologies
such as autonomous vehicles, unmanned aircraft systems,
additive manufacturing, and robots to help support a wide
variety of mission needs. Some of these technologies could
significantly improve combat capability and help save and
preserve the lives of warfighters by performing similar duties
on the battlefield. Autonomous vehicles could be used to move
convoys of vehicles carrying water, fuel, and other supplies
through dangerous areas without putting warfighters directly at
risk. The committee understands that the Services have been
working on these and other technologies to also enhance the
Department's global supply chain.
The committee encourages the Services to jointly develop
and share new technology gains and breakthroughs so that all
the Services can benefit from more technologically advanced
supply chain capabilities. Additionally, while leveraging the
latest technologies can help address global supply chain needs,
the committee notes the importance of monitoring, regulating,
and managing the potential risks from innovative technologies.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million, for a total of $12.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63712S.

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
increases

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $77.7 million was for the PE 63716D8Z Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
$58.6 million was for the PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).
The committee notes that both SERDP and ESTCP demonstrate
and validate the most promising innovative technologies that
can meet the Department's most urgent requirements, provide a
return on investment, and are executed through a free and open
competition.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63716D8Z, for SERDP, and an
increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63851D8Z,
for ESTCP for respective totals of $87.7 million and $68.6
million.
The committee strongly encourages the Department to use the
increases in SERDP and ESTCP to address the following: (1) To
help ensure the safety and welfare of the servicemembers and
their dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of
pollution and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost
of remedial actions and compliance with environmental laws and
regulations, specifically as it relates to per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; (2) To develop, demonstrate,
validate, and field fluorine-free firefighting foam; (3) To
meet long-term environmental threats and sustain training and
testing ranges; (4) To advance sustainable technologies and
bio-based products that meet military requirements; and (5) To
advance other technologies deemed appropriate.

Microelectronics technology development and support

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $168.9 million was for PE 63720S manufacturing
technology.
The committee notes that the Tunable Filter Program focuses
on advancement of microelectronic tunable thin film filters to
provide greater functionality for wireless communications
systems at reduced cost, size, weight, and power demand. The
budget request includes insufficient funds to continue this
program, critical to development of next-generation
communications systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $173.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63720S.

Advanced electronics technologies

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $111.0 million was for PE 63739E advanced electronics
technologies.
The committee understands the importance of
microelectronics fabrication, and, in particular, the Beyond
Scaling Advanced Technologies project, which focuses on large
scale co-development with industry as well as the design and
capture of advanced intellectual property (IP) architectures,
IP sharing, and access to foundries. The committee urges
coordination between this effort and similar ongoing
complementary work in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million, for a total of $118.5 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63739E, for Electronics Resurgence Initiative.

Network-centric warfare technology

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $483.5 million was for PE 63766E network-centric warfare
technology.
Though the committee appreciates the importance of network-
centric warfare for the future battle environment, the
committee is concerned about the potential for transition of
some of the projects within this program element. The committee
is specifically concerned with tactical exploitation of the
acoustic channel.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $473.5 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63766E.

Sensor technology

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $190.1 million was for PE 63767E sensor technology.
The committee recognizes the threat posed by multiple small
unmanned aerial systems beyond the line-of-sight. Therefore,
the committee is encouraged by the mission and progress of
projects like Aerial Dragnet and encourages collaboration with
similar efforts occurring elsewhere in the Department of
Defense.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million, for a
total of $191.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63767E, for
sensor technology.

Quick reaction special projects

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $69.6 million was for PE 63826D8Z quick reaction special
projects.
The committee is concerned about the duplication of
activities within this program element elsewhere in the
Department of Defense. The committee is particularly concerned
about the ability of the Rapid Reaction Fund to achieve its
stated mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $59.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63826D8Z.

Test and evaluation science and technology related to hypersonics and
directed energy

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $96.3 million was for PE 63941D8Z test and evaluation
science and technology.
Given the importance of hypersonic weapons and directed
energy to the execution of the National Defense Strategy,
establishing high quality testing facilities for these systems
should be a high priority for the Department of Defense. Too
often, these supporting functions are forgotten and research
suffers for lack of test facility capacity.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $106.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63941D8Z, for hypersonics and directed energy test.

Test and evaluation science and technology workforce development

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $96.3 million was for PE 63941D8Z test and evaluation
science and technology.
The committee recognizes the integral importance of test
and evaluation to successful science and technology
development. The committee urges the Department of Defense to
prioritize supporting capabilities that will enable
technological progress--namely, investment in the workforce
qualified in these disciplines. Research across disciplines
depends on the engagement of experienced and qualified
personnel.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $101.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 63941D8Z, for workforce development.

Operational energy capability improvement

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $40.5 million was for the PE 64055D8Z Operational Energy
Capability Improvement Fund (OECIF).
The committee continues to recognize the urgent requirement
to constantly innovate and improve combat capability and
operational effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and
competitive operational energy science and technology
investments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $50.5 million, in RDT&E, PE 64055D8Z,
for OECIF.
Specifically, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to use the OECIF and increase in funding to address
the following urgent concerns: deployable technologies that can
harvest water from air, tactical microgrids, sustainable
forward operating bases, alternative energy storage in
contested environments, waste to energy technologies that are
necessary given the continual challenge of open-air burn pits,
joint infantry company prototypes, long-endurance unmanned
aerial vehicles, and other technologies deemed appropriate.

National Security Innovation Activities

The budget request included $3.7 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for
advanced technology development.
The committee remains concerned about foreign investment in
emerging hardware technologies with potential national security
applications that are produced by United States companies.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0
million to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E),
Defense-wide, line number to be determined, to conduct
activities to establish interactions between the Department of
Defense and the commercial technology industry and academia
with the goal of encouraging private investment in specific
hardware technologies of interest to future defense technology
needs with unique national security applications. The provision
authorizing such national security innovation activities is
contained in this Act.

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $3.8 million was for the PE 604016D8Z Department of
Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program.
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since
fiscal year 2011. The DOD estimates that the cost to prevent
and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military
equipment, weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure, is
approximately $22.9 billion.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $8.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program.

Trusted and assured microelectronics

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
$233.1 million was for PE 64294D8Z trusted and assured
microelectronics.
The committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply
chain assurance against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready
access to trusted microelectronics. The committee notes its
desire for a long-term strategy for the development of trusted
microelectronics that can withstand any future problems with an
international supply chain.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million, for a total of $238.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 64294D8Z, for new trusted approach development.

Defense Contract Management Agency information technology development

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $12.0 million was for PE 65013BL, Information Technology
Development.
The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery
timeline for this program, going multiple years without
delivering capability to the end-user. The committee notes that
for many information technology (IT) programs and activities
the Department has been slow to adopt modern, commercial
``agile'' acquisition practices. In many programs the
Department is still using dated and slower IT development and
deployment practices--which usually end up being more costly
and delivering out-of-date software products.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $12.0
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65013BL.

Deputy Chief Management Officer policy and integration

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $2.1 million was for PE 65075D8Z Deputy Chief Management
Officer (DCMO) Policy and Integration.
The committee recognizes that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) gave
the Office of the Chief Management Officer significantly
increased responsibilities for data management and integration
across the Department of Defense. Based on this new mission,
the committee encourages the Department to invest in improved
data processing and analytics tools to fulfill its expanded
responsibilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million, for a total of $3.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65075D8Z, for data and advanced analytics.

Defense-wide electronic procurement capabilities

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $6.4 million was for PE 65210D8Z for Defense-wide
Electronic Procurement Capabilities.
The committee is concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract-writing systems. The committee encourages
the program to consolidate requirements for contract-writing
systems across the department.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.4
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 65210D8Z, for a total of
$0.0 million.

Trusted and assured microelectronics engineering and manufacturing
development

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $56.2 million was for PE 65294D8Z trusted and assured
microelectronics.
The committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply
chain assurance against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready
access to trusted microelectronics. The committee notes its
desire for a long-term strategy for the development of trusted
microelectronics that fulfill Department of Defense needs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million, for a total of $58.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65294D8Z.

Hypersonic experimentation facilities

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $258.7 million was for PE 64940D8Z, Central Test and
Evaluation Investment Development (CTEIP).
The committee is encouraged by the priority the Department
of Defense has placed on hypersonic capability development.
However, the committee remains concerned that the United States
may face a shortfall in advanced hypersonic experimentation
facilities. The committee recognizes the important role that
wind tunnels play in research development, and believes that
the Department should make investments in hypersonic test and
experimentation facilities that leverage the capabilities of
academic institutions, government laboratories, and Industry
teams to perform the necessary applied research.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $268.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 64940D8Z, for hypersonic experimentation facilities.

Joint mission environment test capability

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $84.2 million was for PE 65100D8Z joint mission
environment test capability.
The committee shares the view, repeatedly cited across the
Department of Defense, that the lack of cyber range capacity,
connectivity, and adequate interoperability is negatively
impacting the military's ability to train in seamless,
operationally realistic cyberspace environments and poses one
of the greatest cyber challenges to the joint force.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $89.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65100D8Z, for cyber range capacity and development. These
funds will allow for the construction of additional cyber range
capacity and connectivity and support the Department's cyber
ranges by improving their cyber range architectures,
instrumentation, standards, and workforce.

Technical studies, support and analysis

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $22.6 million was for PE 65104D8Z technical studies,
support and analysis.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to make use
of a broader set of analytic capabilities, including those at
not-for-profit research organizations and think tanks,
universities, and in-house laboratories to support these types
of analyses.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $17.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65104D8Z.

Developmental Test and Evaluation

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $20.2 million was for PE 65804D8Z, Developmental Test and
Evaluation.
The committee notes that software is becoming an
increasingly important part of weapons systems and requires
matching test capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $25.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65804D8Z, to improve software testing capabilities.

Policy research and development programs

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $6.3 million was for PE 35186D8Z policy research and
development programs.
The committee urges closer coordination with similar
efforts elsewhere in the Department of Defense and across the
intelligence community. The committee is also concerned about
the growth in this request over past years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
million, for a total of $3.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 65186D8Z.

Personnel security and continuous evaluation innovation

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $5.6 million was for PE 35327V insider threat.
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) directed the
Defense Security Service to undertake an additional mission of
background investigations and personnel security for Department
of Defense (DOD) personnel. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee directed the DOD to engage with cutting-edge
technology entities in order to advance existing capabilities
related to personnel security, and this funding is meant to
complement that directive.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $10.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
PE 35327V, for personnel security and continuous evaluation
innovation.

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation cyber projects

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $71.0 million was for PE 65814OTE, Operational Test
Activities and Analyses.
The committee notes that cybersecurity is an increasingly
important matter for programs. As technologies and systems
become more complex, the Department must augment investments in
test and evaluation technologies.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.9
million, for a total of $81.9 million, for PE 65814OTE,
Operational Test Activities and Analyses.

Items of Special Interest

AC-130J High Energy Laser

The committee recommends full authorization of the $34.0
million requested in fiscal year 2019 for the U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) AC-130J High Energy Laser (HEL)
program intended to deliver a 60 kilowatt laser for operational
assessment during fiscal year 2022. However, the committee is
concerned that the future year's defense program for fiscal
years 2020 through 2022 does not project sufficient funds for
the completion of this effort and an additional $62.0 million
will be required to integrate, test, and assess the laser
weapons system in the coming years.
As noted in testimony before the committee, the advanced
state of the HEL technology may permit an expedited schedule of
integration, testing, and operational assessment of this weapon
system. The committee believes that the Department should make
the investment necessary to field this potentially
transformative capability as soon as possible.
For fiscal year 2018, the committee notes that the Air
Force and the Rapid Reaction Technology Office has committed to
providing a total of $29.0 million to complement the $15.6
million allocated by USSOCOM for the AC-130J HEL effort. The
committee strongly supports continued joint funding of this
program given the significant potential application of HEL
capabilities beyond special operations missions and the need to
ensure integration with other HEL-related efforts across the
Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict, to submit a plan for fully funding the AC-
130J HEL program in fiscal years 2020 to 2022 with the
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2020.

Acoustic Threat Detection

The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Army to
develop and operationally test acoustic threat detection
technologies and is supportive of the continued deployment of
these systems in Afghanistan and other locations to aid of
combat operations. However, the committee is concerned about
increased threats from unmanned aerial systems to forward
operating bases. The committee encourages the Army to develop
and operationally test sensor systems that can accurately
detect and geo-locate both ground and air threats.
Therefore, not later than 60 days after the enactment of
this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on
existing threat detection technologies and capabilities,
results of exercises and deployed operational testing,
technologies available to detect both ground and air threats
using a single integrated system, and the ability to accelerate
the development and fielding of this technology to a program of
record.

Active Protection System for Abrams, Bradley, Stryker

The committee notes that the Army's M1 Abrams Tank will be
upgraded with the Trophy Active Protection System (APS), which
has already been used in battle to protect the Israel Defense
Forces Merkava tanks.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91) provided $138.7 million in funding for one
brigade in Europe and another $171.0 million in an unfunded
requirement for more APSs that could be used for Trophy for the
Korean theater. The budget request included $617.5 million that
would support funding the procurement of 282 APSs and
countermeasures for the Abrams tanks.
The Committee strongly supports the President's Budget
Request for APS for Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker.

Additive manufacturing within the military departments

The committee remains strongly supportive of the Department
of Defense's efforts to leverage additive manufacturing (AM)
processes and applications in order to improve the Department's
capabilities and materiel readiness. The committee strongly
encourages the Department to pursue AM in order to augment the
current supply chain, achieve shorter lead times compared to
traditional manufacturing methods, negate the impact of
obsolete or out-of-production sources of supply, and reduce
costs and weight at the point of need.
The committee recognizes that the requirement to certify
and qualify AM parts and components remains a fundamental
challenge to broader and more rapid use of AM capabilities
across the military departments. The committee is encouraged by
the formation of the Joint AM Steering Group and Joint AM
Working Group and encourages them to work with the Services to
identify AM best practices. The committee also encourages the
Services to continue advancing the qualification,
certification, and integration of AM parts into the supply
chain. The committee believes that the Services should continue
to develop requirements and training necessary at the levels of
warfighter, artisan, and acquisition officer. The Department
must also ensure that any technical data and intellectual
property related to AM parts are appropriately protected.

Advanced countermeasure dispenser system for 4th generation/legacy
aircraft

The committee is aware that potential adversaries are
making significant improvements in their ability to detect,
target, and engage U.S. tactical aircraft across the infrared
(IR) and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Fourth-generation,
``legacy aircraft'', are particularly vulnerable and, as they
will form a significant portion of our tactical aircraft
inventory for decades to come, their survivability will be
increasingly challenged.
Legacy aircraft must include the ability to counter these
emerging threats through readily-available and quickly-
integrated means, including advance IR/RF expendable
countermeasures and more capable dispensing systems.
Therefore, the committee strongly supports investment to
sustain the survivability of our 4th generation tactical
aircraft, including advanced countermeasures and their
associated dispensing systems.

Advanced hull technology

The committee understands that the Navy may be making
greater use of small planing boats to counter asymmetrical
threats. The committee has supported the Navy's investment in
sophisticated computer hydrodynamic modeling and simulation
tools for design, testing, and analysis of high-performance and
high-efficiency hull forms.
The committee encourages the Navy to increase its
investment in an advanced hull form development and prototype
demonstration initiative and at sea testing to accelerate the
development and transition of advanced hull designs,
particularly hull forms that reduce injury to small craft
operators and warfighters.

Advanced low-weight body armor report

The committee is aware that next generation body armor
technology, including ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene,
may provide maximum protection against a wide range of
ballistics threats in a lighter, more flexible application that
enhances comfort, mobility, and safety. Furthermore, high
performance lightweight body armor technology could
successfully protect warfighters, and with a range of modern
lightweight, low-profile material grades, next generation body
armor may offer a practical solution for all soldiers. The
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in
conjunction with the service secretaries, is directed to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees not later than
90 days after the enactment of this Act. The report should
describe the Department's efforts to make available ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene and other next generation body
armor technologies, including for vests, helmets and inserts.
The report should also review technologies across the Services
and highlight those that provide exceptional protective
performance without compromising comfort, agility, or function.

Aerospace sensors

U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Navy front-line fighter
aircraft are equipped with the Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) radar with all services actively pursuing back fit
of AESA radars on legacy aircraft. The USAF has identified
threats from adversaries operating at frequencies where AESA's
capabilities can be further improved and the USAF has tasked
the Air Force Research Lab to lead the development of
technologies that address these capability gaps. The Air
Force's objective is to develop hardware that can be used
across the services to address spectrum threats not only to
AESA radars but threats to weapons, missile seekers, and other
airborne platforms. The committee believes that dedicated
resources to this program will result in newer, more capable
arrays which will provide significant performance advantages,
with wider frequency coverage. The committee encourages the Air
Force to continue these efforts and provide resources as needed
to develop newer, more capable arrays which will provide
significant performance advantages.

Airless Tire Technology Demonstration

Special operations and other forces are heavily deployed
across the world and will continue to be, in increasingly
asymmetrical and unconventional warfare environments. The
committee supports technology that will dramatically improve
the mobility and safety of military personnel operating in
hazardous environments, like non-pneumatic or airless tire
technology. Airless tires can be superior to conventional tires
in specific locations because they remain consistent in
different atmospheric pressures and austere environments, are
low maintenance, and require no additional inflation gauges or
tools, saving weight and space for other essential equipment.
The committee notes that an airless tire technology prototype
has been developed and patented commercially and could be
deployed in the next 18-24 months.

Army Assured Mobility in Northern Regions

Given the National Defense Strategy's emphasis on great
power competition, the Committee is interested in the Army's
plans for ensuring the mobility of Army ground vehicles in
northern terrain environments to include the Arctic region and
similar cold weather terrain. The Committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to ensure that ground vehicles are
adequately prepared by conducting a series of experiments, if
necessary, in these harsh northern environs, to include snow,
ice, and muskeg. Such experiences could demonstrate science and
technology capabilities to support future acquisition.
Furthermore, the Secretary may develop a test plan to assess
the current vehicle fleet and, if required, develop potential
vehicle upgrades to support maneuver in northern regions that
incorporate new hardware and software technologies.

Combat Vehicle Light Weight Development Program

The committee understands that legacy ground combat
vehicles are struggling to meet performance requirements,
especially survivability, due to the increasing threat and
resulting armor applique weight increases. Developing
lightweight combat vehicles is critical to warfighter
effectiveness, fuel management, and mobility.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense to accelerate research, development, and partnership
activities involving industry, government laboratories, and
academia to accelerate development of lightweight materials and
manufacturing methods for next generation ground combat
vehicles.
The focus of the program should be on new, stronger, and
lighter materials, multi-material manufacturing processes,
innovative lightweight design methods, and technology transfer
to develop a robust industrial base.

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense industry
Independent Research and Development funding

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to undertake a review of the Department of Defense's
(DOD) industry Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
funding.
For nearly 80 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
relied on industry IR&D as a key source of innovation to help
maintain U.S. superiority on the battlefield. IR&D is initiated
and conducted by defense contractors without direct DOD
funding. Rather, IR&D costs are allowable as indirect expenses
on contracts to the extent that they are allocable, fair, and
reasonable.
To qualify as IR&D, the work must fall within the four
following areas: (1) Basic research; (2) Applied research; (3)
Development; and (4) Systems and other concept formulation
studies. Further, the work must not be sponsored by a grant,
required in the performance of a contract, or include technical
effort expended in developing and preparing technical data
specifically to support a submitted bid or proposal. The
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) outlines
additional IR&D requirements. Importantly, DOD's IR&D program
offers participating industry firms the independence to decide
which technologies to pursue, as long as these efforts are of
potential interest to the DOD, as required by the Defense FAR
Supplement. In recent years, however, the DOD and industry have
cited communication gaps as having undermined their ability to
validate that this linkage exists. Specifically, industry
participants have lacked consistent visibility on DOD's
investment priorities, and the DOD has lacked insight into
industry IR&D projects.
The DOD has taken some steps to address the aforementioned
gaps, including the creation of a Defense Innovation
Marketplace website to facilitate IR&D communication.
Nonetheless, the committee remains concerned that these actions
may not provide sufficient guidance to maximize the impact of
industry's IR&D investments for the DOD. The committee notes
that the 2018 National Defense Strategy also highlights the
need for additional changes to industry culture and investment
sources in order to maintain DOD's technological advantage.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review DOD's IR&D efforts. This review
should address: (1) DOD's policies and processes for managing
IR&D, including how it structures contracts with industry
partners to facilitate IR&D; (2) The levels and types of
investment the DOD and industry have made in IR&D; (3) The
benefits and incentives that IR&D offers to its industry
participants; and (4) The innovation outcomes that the DOD and
industry have obtained through IR&D. The review should also
recommend improvements to DOD's IR&D efforts, as appropriate.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Gremlins Air-Recoverable
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System

The committee is aware of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) led ``Gremlins'' research project
focused on technologies enabling aircraft to launch volleys of
affordable and reusable unmanned air systems (OAS), while
reliably recovering them in mid-air. The committee is familiar
with the persistent anti-access area denial (A2/AD) threat and
believes that the project may develop a strategic tool in
countering such tactics. The committee remains encouraged by
the ongoing research and progress of the project, noting the
award of a Phase 3 contract to support a feasibility
demonstration in fiscal year 2019.
The committee encourages the Air Force to review and
evaluate the Gremlins Program as the demonstrated capabilities
mature, and develop a coordinated strategy with DARPA for
potential transition of systems or technologies into Air Force
programs. Considering the importance of overcoming A2/AD
tactics by our adversaries, the committee expects the Air Force
to keep the congressional defense committees updated on the
Department's plans for potential transition of this critical
technology into a formal acquisition effort.

Department of Defense Laboratory talent management and succession
planning

The committee shares concerns raised by the Defense Science
Board that the Department of Defense laboratories should invest
in succession planning, in order to ensure quality high-level
staff. This concern is especially acute given the near-constant
need to adapt to emerging technology. Laboratory directors
should conduct a strategic planning process to ensure that high
level personnel are serving in appropriate positions and that
an adequate succession plan exists.

Diamond transistor technology for power conversion in combat
infrastructure

The committee recognizes the Army's ongoing need to reduce
the size and weight and increase the power and efficiency of
electrical power conversion and distribution systems used in
combat and field deployable operations. The committee
understands that diamond semiconductors offer the potential to
potentially reduce the size and weight of these systems,
provide significant gains in power and efficiency, and increase
system survivability through enhanced electromagnetic pulse
protection. The committee is encouraged by the interest shown
by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Combat Engineering Research Laboratory in investigating new
techniques to build on previous efforts to produce diamond
transistors, in trying to mature the technology to support
potential device and product development, and believes more
research effort in this field is warranted.

Fielding of radiation detection devices

The committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts to field
additional modern radiation detection devices, specifically AN/
PDR-75A Radiac Sets (Personal Dosimeters), in order to reduce
the current readiness gap within the Active Army force
structure. Although nearly fifty percent of Active Army forces
do not yet have this relatively inexpensive, yet critical item
of equipment, funding provided in fiscal year 2018 will allow
the Army to reduce that shortfall significantly. The committee
is further encouraged by the Army's efforts in fiscal year 2019
to develop and field the next-generation Joint Personal
Dosimeter-Individual (JPDI). An individual dosimeter that
includes immediate visual alert, measurement of radiation dose,
and inclusion of a comprehensive, legal record and definitive
proof of radiation exposure over a soldier's entire career is
highly beneficial.
The committee encourages the Army to conduct a rigorous,
fair, and open competition for this new system to ensure the
very best dosimeter is developed and selected for deployment to
soldiers worldwide in order to increase unit and individual
survivability.

Hyper Velocity Projectile

The committee is aware that the Strategic Capabilities
Office (SCO) is testing a Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP), a
next generation, common, low drag, guided projectile capable of
completing multiple missions for Navy 5-inch guns, Army and
Marine Corps 155-mm howitzers, and future electromagnetic (EM)
railguns.
The committee understands that the development and fielding
of HVP is a priority to address mission requirements for
conventional cannon artillery, naval surface fire support,
cruise missile defense, anti-ship warfare, and anti-aircraft
warfare. The HVP will also be critical to future EM railguns,
which could achieve projectile speeds of Mach 6, double that of
conventional naval cannons and artillery.
The committee believes that the increased velocity,
precision and extended range of the HVP will provide the Navy,
Army, and Marine Corps with the capability to address a variety
of current and future threats. Coupled with accurate guidance
electronics, HVP could provide low cost mission effectiveness
against current threats and the ability to adapt to future air
and surface threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Strategic Capabilities Office, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Army, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by December 31, 2018, on the
status of the HVP program. The report should include when
testing will complete and a description of how HVP could be
fielded on current and future naval guns and cannon artillery,
including the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) Program.

Improved Turbine Engine Program

The committee commends the Army for moving forward with
research and development for the Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP). The committee notes the importance of this
critical program, which is intended to develop a more fuel-
efficient and powerful engine for the current UH-60 Black Hawk
and AH-64 Apache helicopter fleets. This new engine will
substantially increase operational capabilities by increasing
range and improving fuel efficiency, while reducing the
logistics footprint, resulting in dramatically reduced
operating and support costs.
Given the positive progress of this key program, the
committee fully supports ITEP in fiscal year 2019.

Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile

The committee is concerned that the United States has no
mobile, land-based anti-ship missile capability. The committee
supports the Army's Long-Range Precision Fires modernization
effort, in particular its Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM)
development. The ability to engage and sink enemy ships from as
many domains as possible can be a critical capability in a
contested maritime environment. The committee strongly
encourages the Army to collaborate with the other Services on
compatible sensor technology, fire control systems, and
networks to maximize the joint force's ability to locate and
successfully engage sea-based weapon systems. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to brief the appropriate
defense committees by December 31, 2018, on this program,
including how the Services are cooperating and collaborating on
this effort.

Military applications for Graphene

The committee understands that graphene is a promising
material that possesses very significant levels of tensile
strength, flexibility, transparency, conductivity, and other
properties. The committee also understands that initial
research demonstrates promising applications for graphene. The
committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) should
pursue research into materials that may provide competitive
advantages, particularly against near-peer potential
adversaries. The committee believes that the Department should
evaluate potential military applications of graphene.
Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in
consultation with the Director, Army Research Laboratory;
Director, Navy Research Laboratory; and Director, Air Force
Research Laboratory, shall provide to the congressional defense
committees a report on potential military applications of
graphene. The report shall include the following elements: (1)
A description of DOD efforts to study graphene; (2) An
assessment of the maturity of basic and applied research on
graphene; and (3) The potential military applications of
graphene for ship and aircraft coatings, land-based and space-
based sensors, individual protective equipment, facility blast
protection, water and fuel filtration, energy storage, and
energy generation in photovoltaic cells.

Modernizing Towed 105 Artillery Systems

The committee understands that the Army is considering the
procurement of a self-propelled 105mm howitzer that could
increase the lethality and maintain the mobility of Infantry
Brigade Combat Teams. The committee remains concerned about the
proliferation of sophisticated quick-fire counter-battery
systems, and believes that the system under consideration could
provide a substantial improvement to the Army's deterrent
posture in Europe. The committee is aware that the system under
evaluation incorporates artillery soft recoil technology with
existing 105mm artillery systems and then further integrates
these technologies onto a light tactical vehicle platform. This
approach could enable the Army to achieve significant
improvements in combat capability with only modest reinvestment
of funding for current or future planned M119 modifications.
The committee encourages the Army to continue to review this
capability through the Army's cross-functional team or urgent
operational needs processes.

Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS)

The committee is aware of the Army UH-72 Light Utility
Helicopter (LUH) testing of the Next Generation Health
monitoring system (NGHMS). The committee understands that
initial testing shows the potential for NGHMS to collect
maintenance intelligence and prognostics to enable early
warning of failing mechanical systems. This information could
reduce emergency maintenance costs, provide predictable
maintenance schedules, and increase readiness for the LUH
fleet.
The committee is aware that recent Army bench testing of
the technology was successful. Installation onto LUH platforms
for operational testing will begin in March 2018. Specifically,
the U.S Army will install NGHMS on 8 Lakota platforms. This
initial operational testing is intended to validate increases
in readiness and reductions in operating costs. However, to
assure proper evaluation across a variety of missions and
terrains, the committee encourages the Army to outfit an
additional 20 LUH Aircraft with NGHMS and include them with the
current test schedule. The committee believes that additional
testing will provide critical information and allow for near-
term decisions to achieve efficient maintenance structures that
foster quality and well-organized fleet management.

Policy issues surrounding emerging technologies for combat and non-
combat use

The committee notes increasing public debate from
policymakers and civil society regarding the employment of
emerging technologies. The committee applauds technological
advancements in fields such as artificial intelligence,
unmanned aerial vehicles, facial recognition software,
surveillance capabilities, and biological enhancements but
encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to designate an
entity to thoroughly examine the policy questions surrounding
their use in combat and non-combat scenarios, including
potential political, legal, and ethical impacts.
The Department should outline methods of technological
usage for new technologies, especially capabilities that
utilize the privacy and data of U.S. citizens. For instance,
cautionary reports from civil society, academia, and industry
warn of the potentially harmful effects of artificial
intelligence in the national security space. With the
proliferation of drone use and artificial intelligence, the DOD
has yet to proactively address questions of application and
use. The committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering to consider the anticipated
application of emerging technologies in combat and non-combat
scenarios.

Rapid-charging hybrid energy storage fuel cells

The committee acknowledges the availability of advanced
hybrid energy storage systems that rapidly charge, allowing
more time in the field, providing more effective use of
alternative energy sources, and supporting the use of micro-
grids for more robust capability. The committee encourages
further research of these technologies to enhance system
capability.

Report on Metal Matrix Composites for Army Vehicles

The committee recognizes the versatility and broad
application that Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) Technology
provides for the armed services by reducing the weight of parts
by fifty percent and increasing the service life by three to
four times over traditional steel. The committee recommends
that the U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (TARDEC) continue to test, develop, and
field components that can reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel
consumption, increase payload capacity, and extend service
life.
The committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide
the congressional defense committees a report on the progress
of development and implementation of MMC components that can be
fielded in Army Ground and Tactical Wheeled Vehicles in order
to reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase
payload capacity, and extend service life. This report should
be received no later than March 31, 2019.

Research, development, and procurement of wearable and mobile remote
power capabilities

The committee understands the advantages that remote power
capabilities provide to warfighters in the field, especially
renewable power sources such as wearable solar panels. Further,
the committee understands the benefits this type of combat
capability provided through dedicated research and development
funding, along with procurement and sustainment resources, to
not only the military services, but also improve the mission
capabilities of Federal and state law enforcement entities.
Additionally, the committee recognizes the ability of
academic and private entities to research and develop remote
power capabilities due private sector applications of the
technology. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the
Department of Defense to continue to invest resources in
academic, private, government entities to research, develop,
and deploy portable power capabilities across the military
services in support of warfighter needs.

Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) Program

The committee supports the Secretary of the Army's recent
emphasis on modernization, particularly the efforts to increase
the lethality of our soldiers. Further, the committee is aware
that small unit intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities can provide soldiers with critically needed
situational awareness particularly in subterranean and Global
Positioning System-denied environments. The committee
understands that the Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) program is key
to these efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018 on the SBS
program. At a minimum, this report shall include a detailed
assessment of threshold requirements, objective requirements,
and other factors under consideration as the Army makes a
determination for the SBS program.

Surrogates for operational testing of torpedoes and torpedo defensive
systems

The committee understands that the Navy routinely conducts
in-water operational testing of its anti-submarine torpedoes
against manned U.S. Navy submarines. The Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has indicated that test
range safety rules, combined with the inability of U.S. nuclear
attack submarines to appropriately emulate threat-
representative submarines, limit the operational realism of
these test events. The committee notes that since 2013, the
Navy, in coordination with the DOT&E, has worked to define the
requirements for a mobile set-to-hit torpedo target, but has
yet to procure such targets. The committee is concerned that
U.S. defenses are not being tested using test assets
representative of many highly capable and proliferated threat
torpedoes.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to deliver to the congressional defense committees not later
than March 1, 2019, a plan for the use of threat-representative
surrogates for torpedoes and torpedo defensive systems. For
fiscal years 2020 through 2024, the plan shall include threats
being addressed, test and evaluation activities, budgeted
funding, additional funding requirements, and the associated
schedule.

Technology and transition accelerators

The committee recognizes the potential and benefits of the
Technology and Transition Accelerators established by the
Department of Defense. Technology accelerators, including those
efforts under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering, are aimed at providing opportunities for the
Department to leverage public-private partnerships in order to
build a network connecting national security challenges with
innovators and entrepreneurs. Technology transition
accelerators, like the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency's Microsystem Technology Office Transition Accelerator
and the Small Business Innovation Research program, strive to
improve the business models of small high-tech companies and
support researchers in moving technologies from concept to
commercialization in order to position them for impact in both
the defense and commercial markets. The committee encourages
the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
review these and other similar activities and assess their
potential application to other parts of the research and
engineering enterprise.

Trusted and assured microelectronics

The committee is aware of the importance of the Department
of Defense's long-term strategy to ensure trusted and assured
supply chains for defense systems. The committee also
recognizes that the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC)
provides a bridge between science and technology programs and
defense programs, enhancing the Department's ability to rapidly
transition microelectronics technology to the joint force. Not
later than February 1, 2019, the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Systems Engineering shall provide to the congressional
defense committees a briefing on a strategy to optimize and
formalize the technology transition process utilizing the JFAC.

Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar

The committee is aware of efforts undertaken by U.S.
Special Operations Command to develop an ultra-low power,
rapidly deployable radar to enhance surveillance and
reconnaissance missions and to provide small team force
protection in austere locations. The committee understands that
the military services are exploring the utility of this
capability to meet their requirements and looks forward to the
results of their review.

Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net System

The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps rely on multispectral
camouflage nets to cloak U.S. and allied weapon systems from
enemy visual detection, radars, and sensors. Foreign detection
devices such as sensors and radars now are overmatching the
current camouflage nets and pose an imminent threat to U.S.
forces. The committee notes the long standing success of our
allied partner nations who employ mobile camouflage systems on
their combat vehicles, especially within NATO and the European
theater. These relatively inexpensive camouflage net systems
provide enhanced signature management protection, reduce heat
and temperature inside and around combat vehicles, and yield
fuel savings without interfering with the operation of the
vehicles.
Army commanders have expressed an immediate operational
need for mobile camouflage systems, in woodland, desert, and
arctic variants in particular. The committee is aware of the
Army's on-going operational testing of mobile camouflage
systems at the National Training Center and elsewhere and
encourages further acceleration of those efforts. Given the
potential significant advantages of developing this capability,
with specific interest towards enhancing interoperability, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
congressional defense committees, within 90 days of enactment
of this Act, with a report which outlines the mobile camouflage
system test results and the Army's plan and timeline to fund
development, testing, and fielding of these systems to the
warfighter.

Workforce and infrastructure for National Defense Strategy priority
technologies

The committee recognizes that the National Defense Strategy
identified certain priority emerging technologies (for example,
advanced computing, ``big data'' analytics, artificial
intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonics,
and biotechnology) as having the potential to change the very
character of war. The committee has followed this designation
with the authorization of investments in research within these
categories within other portions of this Act.
However, the committee urges the Department of Defense
(DOD) to prioritize those supporting capabilities that will
enable technological progress in these areas-namely, workforce
and infrastructure. Too often, these supporting functions are
forgotten and research suffers for lack of qualified personnel
or test facilities within the DOD laboratories and the Major
Range and Test Facility Base.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report on workforce and infrastructure needs for
the development of each of these priority technologies over the
coming five years. The report should include specific
shortfalls in each category, if they exist, and recommendations
for legislative action if necessary. The report must be
submitted by March 15, 2019, to the relevant congressional
defense committees.

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 Environment

Further improvements to energy security and resilience (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
further improvements to energy security and resilience within
the Department of Defense by ensuring mission assurance is
prioritized in energy policy and management. Additionally, the
provision would require the development of goals and metrics to
assess progress when implementing energy resilience projects.
Funding of study and assessment of health implications of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water by
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 316(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to allow funds to be
transferred to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
the study and assessment of health implications of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 183a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse shall be
organized under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment. Additionally, this provision encourages the
Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse to prioritize
pilot safety when evaluating energy projects. The committee
understands the immense workload of the clearinghouse and
therefore, recommends a $1.0 million funding increase for the
Clearinghouse office as specified in the funding tables.
Operational energy policy (sec. 314)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2926 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a
comprehensive operational energy policy and to promote the
development and acquisition of equipment that enhances energy
security and energy resilience.
Funding treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
perfluorooctanoic acid at State-owned and operated National
Guard installations (sec. 315)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to treat perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
and perfluorooctanoic acid in drinking water at State-owned and
operated National Guard installations with several limitations.
The provision would also authorize the National Guard access to
environmental restoration funds.
The committee notes that this provision does not reflect
any intent of serve as a statement on government liability.
This is a process for funding to address a very specific and
severe health concern. The committee takes no stance on pending
court cases between the federal government and state and local
municipalities. The committee hopes that the lessons learned
from this incident by all parties involved will prevent such an
event from occurring in the future.

Subtitle C--Reports

Reports on readiness (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) to establish a
tracking mechanism for the number of monthly C-level upgrades
or downgrades by a unit commander. The provision would also
separate the annex on operational contract support and make it
a standalone annual report in order to decrease the delivery
time of the QRRC.
Report on cold weather capabilities and readiness of United States
Armed Forces (sec. 322)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the current cold weather capabilities
and readiness of the United States Armed Forces not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Pilot programs on integration of military information support and civil
affairs activities (sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the commanders of the geographic combatant commands and U.S.
Special Operations Command to carry out pilot programs for the
integration of military information support and civil affairs
activities in support of the theater campaign plans of such
combatant command.
The committee believes that Department of Defense civil
affairs and military information support activities are
complementary and are important tools to support the military
objectives of the combatant commands. These efforts can be
better leveraged to provide whole of government solutions to a
rapidly evolving global security environment.
The committee also notes that the process for funding the
execution of military information support and civil affairs
activities often does not align with operational timelines or
involves fiscal authorities that are misaligned to the purpose
of the activity. The fiscal authority provided under this pilot
program would provide a flexible and more appropriate means for
funding military information support and civil affairs
activities while also incentivizing whole of government
solutions in support of U.S. messaging and stabilization
objectives.
Reporting on future years budgeting by subactivity group (sec. 332)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
departments to include in their OP-5 Justification Books the
amount for each subactivity group as detailed in the Department
of Defense's future years defense program.
The committee notes that other Justification Books, such as
those for Procurement and Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation, currently contain this information.
Restriction on upgrades to aviation demonstration team aircraft (sec.
333)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from upgrading the type, model, or
series of aircraft used by a military service for its fixed
wing aviation demonstration teams, including the Blue Angels
and Thunderbirds aircraft, until the Service's active and
reserve duty squadrons and weapons training schools have
replaced 100 percent of the existing type, model, and series of
aircraft unless the Secretary grants a waiver to upgrade for
the purposes of pilot safety.
U.S. Special Operations Command civilian personnel (sec. 334)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, of the funds authorized in Operation & Maintenance,
Defense-wide for U.S. Special Operations Command civilian
personnel, not less than $6.2 million shall be used to fund the
detail of civilian personnel to the office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to support the Secretariat for Special
Operations.
The committee remains concerned that current civilian
manpower within the ASD SOLIC is not sufficient to fulfill the
``service secretary-like'' responsibilities for the advocacy
and oversight of special operations forces mandated by section
922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328). According to a report required by
section 1074 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), an independent manpower
study by the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency determined that
a total of 64 civilian personnel could be required to execute
the ``service secretary-like'' responsibilities required of the
ASD SOLIC by law. According to the same report, only 14
personnel are currently assisting the ASD SOLIC for the
fulfillment of these responsibilities.
The committee is concerned that the number of civilian
personnel assigned to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
continues to grow, including a planned increase of 128 civilian
personnel in fiscal year 2019. The committee notes that the
establishment of the ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special
Operations should result in administrative and oversight
efficiencies and the transfer of functions that are more
appropriately conducted by the ASD SOLIC. This provision is
intended to facilitate the transfer of no fewer than 50
civilian personnel from SOCOM to the ASD SOLIC for support of
the Secretariat for Special Operations.
Limitation on availability of funds for service-specific Defense
Readiness Reporting Systems (sec. 335)
The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
the Department of Defense funds to operate service-specific
Defense Readiness Reporting Systems (DRRS) until the Secretary
of Defense submits a resource and funding plan to eliminate
service-specific DRRS.
The committee notes that according to chapter 2 of title
10, United States Code, as amended by the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105-261), DRRS was to be ``applied uniformly throughout the
Department of Defense.'' The committee is concerned that the
military services are not adhering to the prescribed law by
having separate readiness reporting systems, even though they
all bear the same name. The committee notes that since each
service, with the exception of the Air Force, operates its own
system separate from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
Joint Staff, it is difficult and time consuming to capture a
real-time, accurate readiness rating.
Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 348(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) by inserting ``shredded
or'' before ``melted and repurposed''.
The committee notes the provision would grant the Army
flexibility to better control costs when conducting scheduled
demilitarizing of surplus firearms.
Limitation on availability of funds for establishment of additional
specialized undergraduate pilot training facility (sec. 337)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit funds
to establish a new specialized undergraduate pilot training
location until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a
prescribed certification. The provision would also require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on specialized
undergraduate pilot training production, resourcing, and
locations.
Scope of authority for restoration of land due to mishap (sec. 338)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2691 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
vehicle crashes must meet the regulations of the Federal
department with administrative jurisdictions of the affected
land.
Redesignation of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) (sec. 339)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Utah Test and Training Range located in northwestern Utah and
eastern Nevada to be redesignated.

Subtitle E--Logistics and Sustainment

Limitation on modifications to Navy Facilities Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) structure and mechanism
(sec. 351)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of the Navy from making any modifications to the
existing Navy Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and
Modernization (FSRM) structure until 90 days after providing
notice of the proposed FSRM modification to the congressional
defense committees.

Budget Items

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase
The budget request included $51.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.3 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
$14.3 million for SAG 411 Security Programs for SOUTHCOM
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Army marketing and advertising reduction
The budget request included $42.0 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $698.9 million was for
SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising.
The committee continues to be concerned with the Army's
lack of oversight and inability to track performance metrics in
its recruiting, marketing, and advertising efforts. The
committee is also concerned by the lack of contracting
professionals employed by the Army Marketing and Research Group
and expects the Army to take appropriate accountability
measures on those contracts that were awarded inappropriately.
The committee notes the requested resources could be better
aligned for other readiness priorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising.
Army Operation and Maintenance budget request for civilian pay
The budget request included $51.3 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army.
The Office of Inspector General released a study in March
2018 that found the Army has under executed its civilian pay
budget for the last 3 fiscal years, mainly due to the Army's
non-compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
Office of the Secretary of Defense guidance.
Specifically, the Inspector General found that the
adjustments applied to the basic compensation calculation were
normally not permitted by OMB policy and overtime was not
included in the Army budget request. Additionally, army
officials utilized excess civilian compensation to pay for
underfunded non-pay operating expenses, intentionally not
hiring up to the Army's civilian personnel authorizations.
The Army under-executed the civilian pay requested in the
fiscal year 2017 President's Budget by $481.5 million, which
was the most the Army has under-executed in the last 3 years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
million to Operation and Maintenance, Army.
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase for sensor
integration
The budget request included $56.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.4 billion was for SAG 1C1C
Combat Communications and Electronic Warfare.
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 OMN of
$1.7 million for SAG 1C1C Combat Communications and Electronic
Warfare for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance.

Enterprise information reduction

The budget request included $49.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, of which $921.9 million was for SAG BSIT
Enterprise Information.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $45.0
million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information for a general
reduction.

Navy facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization increase

The budget request included $49.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $2.0 billion was for SAG BSM1
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization.
The committee notes the importance of maintaining the
crucial facilities that support the warfighter both in the
United States and overseas. The committee believes facilities,
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) funding is
crucial to rebuilding and maintaining readiness.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $406.0
million to SAG BSM1 for FSRM.

F-35 depot component repair capability

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $758.2 million was for
SAG 11A Air Operations, Primary Combat Forces and Support.
The committee remains concerned by the Not Mission
Capable--Supply (NMC-S) rates of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
In part, the high NMC-S rates are due to a lack of adequate
repair capacity. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
noted in a report published on October 26, 2017, titled ``F-35
Aircraft Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting
Readiness and Cost Transparency'' (GAO-18-75), ``DOD does not
have enough capacity to repair F-35 aircraft parts because the
establishment of repair capabilities at the military depots is
6 years behind schedule'' (page 12). The report goes on to say,
``Program officials in part attributed these delays to the
military services not providing enough funding for depot
requirements; however, service officials told us the program
office did not clearly identify some depot requirements in a
timely manner necessary for the services to fund those
requirements'' (page 13).
Despite the clear and obvious shortcomings in F-35
sustainment, the committee is not convinced that the program
office and the Services are adequately addressing the problems,
including providing adequate funding to stand up depot
component repair capabilities and purchase the necessary lay-in
material, both of which are years behind schedule.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in OMAF to SAG 11A Air Operations, Primary Combat
Forces and Support for the stand up of depot component repair
capabilities.

Air Force demolition increases

The budget request included $42.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $2.9 billion was for
SAG 11R Real Property Maintenance. The budget request also
included $3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Reserve (OMAFR), of which $120.7 million was for SAG 11R Real
Property Maintenance.
The committee notes the importance of Department of Defense
infrastructure to supporting operational readiness. The
committee is concerned, however, that the Department is not
allocating proper resources for demolishing older buildings
that are not in use but still require crucial resources to
maintain.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $25.0
million to SAG 11R in OMAF for demolition and $2.8 million to
SAG 11R in OMAFR for demolition.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System weapons system
sustainment

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.8 billion was for
SAG 11W Air Operations, Contractor Logistics Support and System
Support.
The budget request included the retirement of three E-8C
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
aircraft. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a
provision that would prohibit the retirement of any E-8C JSTARS
aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $95.9
million in OMAF to SAG 11W Air Operations, Contractor Logistics
Support and System Support to restore reductions associated
with the divestment of three E-8C JSTARS aircraft.

Air Force weapon system sustainment increases

The budget request included $42.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.8 billion was for
SAG 11W Contractor Logistics Support and System Support. The
budget request also included $3.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which $241.2 million
was for SAG 11W Contractor Logistics Support and System
Support.
The committee notes the importance of weapon system
sustainment (WSS) to ensure the Air Force's crucial weapon
systems that support the warfighter are at the highest
readiness rating possible. The committee notes that the Air
Force has additional execution capability to bring WSS to 100
percent for the active component and 91 percent for the reserve
component.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $550.0
million to SAG 11W Contractor Logistics Support and System
Support OMAF for WSS and $52.0 million to SAG 11W Contractor
Logistics Support and System Support in OMAFR for WSS.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System flight hours

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $4.4 billion was for
SAG 11Y Air Operations, Flying Hour Program.
The budget request included the retirement of three E-8C
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
aircraft. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a
provision that would prohibit the retirement of any E-8C JSTARS
aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million in OMAF to SAG 11Y Air Operations, Flying Hour Program
to restore flying hour reductions associated with the
divestment of three E-8C JSTARS aircraft.

Deployable airbase systems

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force.
As part of its strategic approach for addressing long-term
strategic competition with China and Russia, the National
Defense Strategy calls for building a more lethal force,
including investments in forward force maneuver, posture
resilience, and resilient and agile logistics. The objectives
of these investments are to ensure that U.S. forces can
``deploy, survive, operate, maneuver, and regenerate in all
domains while under attack'' and conduct ``logistics
sustainment while under persistent multi-domain attack.''
Meeting these objectives will require a transition ``from
large, centralized, unhardened infrastructure to smaller,
dispersed, resilient, adaptive basing that include active and
passive defenses'' as well as an emphasis on ``prepositioned
forward stocks and munitions, strategic mobility assets,'' and
``distributed logistics and maintenance.''
Consistent with the priorities set forth in the National
Defense Strategy, the committee has fully supported resiliency
efforts such as the prepositioning of European contingency air
operations set deployable airbase Systems, which is part of the
European Deterrence Initiative, to complement and enhance the
theater-wide response capability of the U.S. Air Force in
Europe.
However, the committee is concerned that the appropriate
level of investment in similar resiliency efforts in the Indo-
Pacific region has not materialized. U.S. force posture in the
Indo-Pacific region remains heavily concentrated in Northeast
Asia within range of China's advanced arsenal of ballistic and
cruise missiles, posing a significant risk to forward-stationed
forces, to the ability of the joint force to execute the
contingency plans of the Department of Defense, and to the
credibility of U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.
As a result, Admiral Harry Harris, Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM), identified force posture initiatives focused
on resiliency as critical requirements in his letter to the
committee of February 22, 2018, concerning PACOM's unfunded
priority list and in his testimony to the committee on March
15, 2018.
Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of seven
deployable airbase systems in fiscal year 2019 to be
prepositioned forward in the PACOM area of responsibility in
order to support the priorities of the National Defense
Strategy and PACOM's ``resiliency'' and ``agile logistics''
force posture initiatives, as well as to enhance the credible
combat power of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $156.8
million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System personnel

The budget request included $6.4 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $2.6 billion
was for SAG 11F Aircraft Operations.
The budget request included the retirement of three E-8C
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
aircraft. Included in the divestment is a cost of $1.6 million
and 16 Full Time Employees. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the
retirement of any E-8C JSTARS aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6
million in OMANG to SAG 11F Aircraft Operations to restore the
cuts associated with the divestment of three E-8C JSTARS
aircraft.

Air National Guard increase per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance
environmental restoration funding transfer

The budget request included $6.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $988.3
million was for SAG 11Z Base Support.
The committee continues to support the Air Force's
environmental services efforts to remediate and cleanup per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Accordingly, as requested by the Air Force, the committee
recommends an increase of $11.0 million in OMANG to SAG 11Z for
environmental compliance to remediate and cleanup PFAS.
The committee notes a matching amount of $11.0 million will
be decreased in the tables from Environmental Restoration, Air
Force SAG 42G to reflect the transfer.

Plan for incorporating logistics sustainment under attack into war
games

The budget request included $28.6 million in Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) for SAG 1PL1 Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
The committee recognizes that the National Defense
Strategy's focus on near-peer adversaries fundamentally
challenges long-held assumptions around uncontested logistics
sustainment. The committee urges the Department of Defense to
incorporate appropriate and realistic assumptions around
logistics and transportation into operational war gaming.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
integrate contested logistics and offset technologies into
exercises carried out by the military departments. These
exercises should include an identification of common
assumptions for logistics sustainment based on joint and
individual recommendations of United States Transportation
Command and of the military departments. It is also important
to include a method for capturing lessons learned and providing
feedback to the Joint Staff and military departments following
the completion of these exercises. Where possible, the
committee encourages the inclusion of commercial sector
partners critical to logistics and sustainment in these
wargames.
Further, the committee is supportive of the Department of
Defense's plans to hold a joint table-top exercise to
specifically evaluate the effects of energy denial on the
generation, deployment, employment, and sustainment of combat
forces. This joint table-top exercise for a scenario in the
Pacific theater will be designed to thoroughly examine multiple
seams and the challenges associated with delivery of energy
over the last tactical mile. Given the fact that power and
energy are increasingly essential to the employment of military
capabilities, and new technologies identified in the National
Defense Strategy, the committee recognizes and strongly
supports the Department's efforts to plan this exercise and
strongly encourages the Department to continue to
comprehensively assess the impacts of operating in an energy
denied or restricted environment.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million in OMDW to SAG 1PL1 Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Defense Security Service

The budget request includes $789.2 million in Operations
and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Defense Security Service
(DSS). The committee notes that DSS has identified shortfalls
in critical positions that are focused on the protection of
classified information, technologies, and material in the hands
of cleared industry.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.6
million in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 129
additional civilian full time equivalent positions to support
DSS efforts to protect classified information, technologies,
and material in the hands of cleared industry.

Personnel security background investigations

The budget request includes $789.2 million in Operations
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTE Defense
Security Service (DSS).
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) directed DSS to
undertake an additional mission of background investigations
and personnel security for Department of Defense personnel.
This transition will require dedicated resources to ensure the
smooth transfer of responsibilities, and to bridge the gap
between the Department of Defense and the National Background
Investigations Bureau as the transfer takes place. The addition
of this mission will levy an additional duty on an already
heavily-taxed Defense Security Service, with broad
responsibilities across the defense industrial base.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0
million to OMDW, for SAG 4GTE to support DSS efforts to
establish these capabilities, which may be deployed toward
transition-focused workforce or developing supporting analytic
tools, as approved by the security executive agent, as
necessary.

Funding for impact aid

The budget request included $2.89 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 +40.0
students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities...... +10.0
Total............................................. +50.0

Center for Disease Control study increase

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91), required the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a Center for Disease Control (CDC)
nationwide health study on per- and polyfluoroalkyl
contamination in drinking water.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense
to continue the CDC health study.

Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse increase

The budget request included $1.5 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $1.6 million was for
the Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse.
The committee continues to support the mission of the
office. However, the committee is also concerned that DOD has
not allocated sufficient resources to the office given its
workload and high number of projects.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD Siting Clearinghouse. The
committee encourages the Clearinghouse to make pilot safety a
top priority and to continue to ensure that construction
projects do not significantly compromise flight operations
without appropriate mitigating action.

Defense Environmental International Cooperation program increase

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which no funds were for the
Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC) program.
The committee continues to note that the Army National
Guard and other military units are frequently called upon to
respond to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR)
crises around the world. The DEIC program enables the Army
National Guard to share best practices and lessons learned from
its own HA/DR missions with U.S. allies. This important program
promotes and develops allied HA/DR capability for a relatively
small amount of money.
For example, given current readiness challenges within the
United States Southern Command and its limited bandwidth to
respond to HA/DR missions, the Army National Guard has used the
DEIC program to provide training and capability development to
countries within the region to remove debris and otherwise
respond in the event of an earthquake or hurricane. The
committee continues to support the DEIC program and disagrees
with DOD's intent to terminate a low-cost and useful training
program for the Army National Guard.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to SAG 4GTN for DEIC.

Department of Defense emerging contaminants increase

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $964,000 was for
Department of Defense (DOD) emerging contaminants.
The committee continues to support the mission of the
office to study, analyze and evaluate threats to warfighters
and their families. However, the committee is also concerned
that DOD has not allocated enough resources to the office given
its workload and the likelihood that DOD will have to address
an increasing number of emerging contaminants in the future-for
example, 1,4 Dioxane, Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, and 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane-much like it has with per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances in sources of drinking water.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD emerging contaminants.

Department of Defense environmental resiliency increase

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which only $743,000 was for
Department of Defense (DOD) environmental resiliency efforts.
The committee continues to support the mission of the
office to study, analyze, evaluate, and provide technical
support to warfighters and installations as environmental
challenges continue to cost DOD significant resources and
readiness. However, the committee is also concerned that DOD
has not allocated enough resources to the office given its
workload and the likelihood that DOD will have to address
environmental resilience challenges.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to SAG 4GTN for DOD environmental resiliency efforts.

Department of Defense rewards program reduction

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $3.5 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 $3.0
million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD rewards program.

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $75.0 million was for
the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI).
The committee notes that encroachment resulting from
incompatible development and loss of habitat continues to pose
a major long-term threat to readiness and to the viability of
military installations, ranges, and airspace throughout the
country. REPI involves partnerships between the Department of
Defense (DOD), state and local governments, and conservation
organizations to share the costs of acquiring protective
easements from willing landowners.
The committee continues to support the mission of REPI and
believes the program has proven to be highly effective in
addressing encroachment. The committee supports the
Department's evaluation of REPI to ``protect mission capability
by cost-sharing the long-term protection of high-value habitat
and limiting incompatible land uses around DOD ranges and
installations'' and ``help avoid more expensive costs, such as
the need for training workarounds or segmentation and future
military construction to modify or relocate training assets to
less-restricted locations,'' as stated in the President's 2019
budget.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department
continues to underfund REPI despite its success to date and the
high degree of leverage from partner contributions.
Additionally, the Department has expressed concerns about the
growing need to protect key installations, ranges, and
airspace, yet has failed to match those concerns with adequate
resources.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million to SAG 4GTN for REPI and strongly encourages the
Department to reflect in future REPI budget requests the
urgency of the problem of encroachment and the success REPI has
provided in addressing that problem.

Air Force decrease per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance environmental
restoration funding transfer

The budget request included $296.8 million in Environmental
Restoration, Air Force. The committee continues to support the
Air Force's environmental services efforts to remediate and
cleanup per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Accordingly, as requested by the Air Force, the committee
recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in Environmental
Restoration, Air Force to SAG 042G for environmental compliance
to remediate and cleanup PFAS.
The committee notes a matching amount of $11.0 million will
be increased in the tables to Air National Guard SAG 11Z Base
Support to reflect the transfer.

Foreign currency fluctuations

The budget request included $199.5 billion for Operation
and Maintenance.
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.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease
of $267.0 million for FCF.

Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps increase

The budget request included $80.2 billion in Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $138.3 million was for
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC).
The committee believes JROTC programs are an important
program for the nation and have been historically underfunded
by the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.48
million in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide for Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs.

Air Force Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed
Operation and Maintenance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
for the cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at
certain National Guard locations.

Air National Guard Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed
Operation and Maintenance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Air
National Guard for the cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
substances at certain National Guard locations.

Army Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed
Operation and Maintenance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Army for
the cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at certain
National Guard locations.

Navy Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed
Operation and Maintenance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Navy for
the cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at certain
National Guard locations.

Items of Special Interest

Air Force runway infrastructure

The committee believes that the Air Force's physical runway
infrastructure is an essential component of the readiness of
U.S. operational and strategic forces. The committee believes
that the maintenance of such assets is critical to launching
aircraft quickly and effectively across a variety of mission
areas. The committee is concerned by multiple examples where
the Air Force has yet to or is addressing these requirements
without urgency.
In particular, the committee notes the continued operation
of Offutt Air Force Base, the 55th Air Wing, and the operations
at U.S. Strategic Command are essential to America's continued
national security. As such, the committee believes the current
effort to design and execute a planned repair or rebuild of the
runway is critical, and should be executed with the utmost
speed, resourcing, and diligence. In addition, the committee
notes the Little Rock Air Force Base provides a unique and
crucial capability, serving as the nation's tactical airlift
``Center of Excellence.'' The continued successful operation of
Little Rock Air Force Base is contingent on having a fully
functioning runway, and the committee similarly highlights the
importance of its expeditious completion.
The committee is concerned the Air Force lacks an overall
runway infrastructure plan to address its ongoing runway
maintenance issues, and if it is not addressed, failing runways
will lead to a direct impact on operational readiness.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct an assessment and provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2019, detailing the operational requirements for Air Force
airfields in addition to the state of airfields where runway
degradation currently poses a threat to operations, as well as
installations where such degradation threatens operations in
the five and ten year time frames. The briefing shall include
the operational requirement for airfields, an assessment of the
impact to operations, cost to repair, cost to replace,
remaining useful life, and narrative on the required daily
maintenance to ensure the runway is acceptable for full
operations at the installation, and any challenges with
infrastructure acquisition methods and processes. The briefing
shall also include the operational impact if the respective
runway became inoperable due to a major degradation incident,
such as a crack or fracture resulting from lack of maintenance
and repair. Finally, the briefing shall include a plan to
address any shortfalls associated with the Air Force's runway
infrastructure.
If required, a classified annex may accompany the
unclassified briefing.

All services marketing audit

The committee notes the importance of effective marketing
and recruiting efforts to ensure adequate end strength and
technical capabilities of the military services. The committee
notes that in 2016, the U.S. Army Audit Agency (AAA) began two
internal audits of the Army Marketing and Research Group
(AMRG), both of which recently concluded. The committee
understands that the audits indicate that the AMRG wasted a
significant amount of money on ineffective marketing programs.
Given the results of the AAA audits of the AMRG, the
committee is concerned that similar problems may exist in the
other Services' marketing organizations. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to engage the Naval
Audit Service and the Secretary of the Air Force to engage the
Air Force Audit Agency to undertake similar individual audits
of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force marketing groups and
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 1, 2019. At a minimum, the report shall
include: (1) The effectiveness of advertising programs in the
different Services at recruiting and retaining candidates; (2)
An analysis of how efficiently the Services' advertising
organizations spend their money; (3) Any best practices that
can be shared between the Services to ensure better advertising
practices; and (4) Any additional areas of concern that the
auditing agencies deem appropriate.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct a review of the final audits
upon their release and submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than April 1, 2019.

Ammunition plant reform and stockpile of explosives

The committee is concerned that modernization project
delays at Holston Army Ammunition Plant may have created a
temporary over reliance on foreign sources for trinitrotoluene
(TNT) as it relates to ammunition and munitions production. The
committee strongly encourages the Department to begin domestic
production of insensitive munitions explosives (IMX) as soon as
possible in order to improve the posture of the ammunition
production industrial base and restore war reserve stockpiles.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Department to
explore any appropriate use of the Defense Production Act as it
relates to any strategic stockpiling of TNT and IMX.
The committee commends the Department of the Army on its
continued efforts to make the organic Government Owned
Contractor Operated ammunition production facilities more
competitive, efficient, and cost-effective through constant
reforms. While progress has been made, there are still areas
upon which costs and process can be improved through further
reform in order to reduce overhead. The committee encourages
the Department to continue to work with industry for further
and appropriate reforms. For example, the committee notes that
all Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support contracts are
not identical with respect to how revenues are treated at
different facilities. The committee encourages the Department
to standardize such contracts to the maximum extent
practicable.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
no later than September 1, 2018, on initiatives the Department
plans to take in order to make ammunition production facilities
more competitive and efficient.

Arctic search and rescue

The committee is aware that growing international interest
and changing environmental conditions in the Arctic have led to
increased commercial and governmental activity in the High
North. With this steady surge, the committee remains concerned
by the limited capabilities of the United States to conduct
search-and-rescue operations throughout the Arctic region. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense's Report to
Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security
Interests in the Arctic Region, a report required in section
1068 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public-Law 114-92), identified the need for additional
personnel recovery capability in this region. Specifically, the
report calls for ``forward-deployed/based assets in a
sustainable location and/or rapidly deployable air drop
response/sustainment packages suitable to remote land, cold
water, or ice pack operating environments.''
The committee understands that the 176th Wing of the Alaska
National Guard is the closest dedicated response force with the
only refueling capability to respond to a search-and-rescue
incident in the Arctic. The unit currently possesses two air-
dropped, palletized Arctic Sustainment Packages (ASPs) to
enable the survival of 50 individuals for 3 or more days in
extreme Arctic conditions. The ASP is rapidly deployable over
varied terrain, and allows personnel to survive and operate in
the High North. Each ASP requires considerable resources for
sustainability, demanding 500 man-hours to re-pack ASPs after
testing and to continually keep contents viable. In light of
the increased activity in this region, the committee believes
that this capability could benefit from additional sustainment
funding to maintain the two existing ASPs, and encourages the
Secretary of Defense to prioritize its resourcing.

Assessment of assigning a Security Force Assistance Brigade to U.S.
Africa Command

The committee understands that the Army intends to
establish six Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFAB) for the
purpose of providing geographic combatant commanders with a
capability to train, advise, and assist foreign security
partners. The committee notes that U.S. Africa Command does not
currently have assigned forces to support requirements within
its area of responsibility and relies on forces allocated
through the Global Force Management process.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, no
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
to submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment
of the advisability and feasibility of assigning an SFAB on an
enduring basis to U.S. Africa Command for the purpose of
supporting the security cooperation activities of the Command.
The assessment shall also include a comparison of the relative
merits of utilizing an SFAB to support security cooperation
activities as compared to other conventional Army units,
including a Brigade Combat Team, and Special Operations Forces.

Assessment of Department of Defense installation management

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
maintains over 550,000 facilities on about 28 million acres
with an estimated plant replacement value of about $830.0
billion. The committee understands that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has had DOD's defense support
infrastructure portfolio on its high-risk list since 1997 due
in part to the large financial commitment needed to maintain
this vast portfolio, and DOD's continuing holding of unneeded
real property assets and chronic underfunding of facilities
sustainment.
The committee is concerned with the financial commitment
needed to maintain all of these facilities when DOD believes so
many are excess to need. Prior GAO reports raise questions
about the effectiveness of DOD's real property assets
management. The report from GAO entitled, ``Excess Facilities:
DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy to Guide its
Disposal Efforts''' (GAO-11-814) found DOD had utilization rate
data for only 46 percent of its facilities and no strategy for
disposing of excess facilities after the fiscal year 2013 end
of its demolition program. GAO also found that DOD was
considering a broader approach to facilities management,
including consolidation where possible. Yet in the September
2014 report, ``Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve Its
Efforts to Identify Unutilized and Underutilized Facilities'''
(GAO-14-538), GAO reported that DOD had only improved its
facilities utilization data from 46 percent of facilities to 53
percent.
Knowing the utilization of existing facilities is an
important prerequisite to effective consolidation. In the June
2015 report ``Underutilized Facilities: DOD and GSA Information
Sharing May Enhance Opportunities to Use Space at Military
Installations''' (GAO-15-346), GAO reported that neither DOD
nor the General Services Administration had a process by which
federal agencies could be housed in excess DOD space, a
practice that permits the host installation to avoid the
utilities and maintenance costs they would have otherwise
incurred in maintaining these vacant facilities, thus freeing
up funds for maintaining facilities actually being used by DOD
organizations. In the March 2016 report, ``Defense
Infrastructure: More Accurate Data Would Allow DOD to Improve
the Tracking, Management, and Security of Its Leased
Facilities''' (GAO-16-101), GAO found that DOD is continuing to
lease commercial administrative space within 50 miles of
installations identified for force structure reductions three
years earlier.
Until 2011, GAO cited chronic underfunding of facilities
sustainment as a reason for defense support infrastructure's
inclusion on the high-risk list. At that time, GAO concluded
that DOD had increased sustainment investment sufficiently and
accordingly removed sustainment from the high-risk list.
However, since then, DOD has reported it is again underfunding
sustainment, raising questions about the mission capability of
some of its facilities since such underfunding can lead to
facilities not being in good working order and to life, health,
and safety concerns.
The committee believes it is critical that DOD make cost
effective decisions about how to manage this large facilities
portfolio including excess facilities by appropriately
targeting sustainment funds and disposing of or effectively
reusing excess facilities where possible. Moreover, nothing
prevents DOD from disposing of some excess facilities using
authorities it already has. Even in the absence of a Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, DOD should effectively
use all available and existing authorities to appropriately
manage this facilities portfolio.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives with the President's
fiscal year 2020 budget submission. The Secretary's report
should address, but not be limited to the following: (1) What
progress, if any, the military departments have made since the
2013 planned end of the demolition program in disposing of
excess facilities and by what means other than BRAC; (2) How
the military services prioritize facilities for disposal and
the Services' plans for disposal other than through BRAC
through the end of the current future years defense program;
(3) How DOD and the military services target facilities
maintenance funds to ensure the highest priority facilities are
properly maintained over excess facilities; (4) DOD's and the
military services' long term strategy for ensuring that excess
property is disposed other than through BRAC and how facilities
maintenance funds can be more effectively used; (5) What
progress, if any, the military services have made in moving
from leased space to excess owned space on installations and
otherwise granting space to non-DOD tenants when such tenancy
is consistent with the installation's military mission.
The committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to brief the
congressional defense committees on the findings of the report
not later than January 30, 2019.

Assessment of hybrid electric drive performance

The committee notes the Navy's operational energy program
includes the installation of a Hybrid Electric Drive (HED)
propulsion system on the USS Truxton. The committee understands
the Navy anticipates the USS Truxton installation of the HED
should pay for itself in 6 to 13 years.
The committee is interested in how the Navy will test,
evaluate, and measure the at-sea performance and effectiveness
of the HED on USS Truxton. If the Navy intends to make an
informed decision about whether to program future HED
installations, the committee believes the Navy must ensure such
decisions are based on rigorous analysis of quantitative data
collected from the USS Truxton.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to conduct a comprehensive test and evaluation assessment
of the HED installation on the USS Truxton. The assessment may
include a classified annex. The assessment shall include, but
not be limited to: (1) The HED system use and related effects
monitoring using the Navy Energy Usage System; (2) Daily
operational reports (e.g., OPREP-5) related to HED and its
performance; (3) A comparison of two DDG-51 class ships (HED
and non-HED) while the ships are executing similar mission
sets, both training cycle and deployment (preferably a DDG
flight IIA within the same strike group or other task group);
(4) Metrics that quantitatively evaluate and compare transit
operations, training operations, presence operations,
operational missions, enhanced mission effectiveness, reduced
logistical burdens and mission risk, and increased capability
and resilience; (5) An analysis of operating costs compared to
ships in the same class without HED for the same time period;
(6) Updated investment planned for HED in the future years
defense program; and (7) Any other elements the Secretary deems
appropriate.
The assessment shall be conducted with a report delivered
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United
States no later than January 1, 2020. The report shall describe
the findings of each of the seven prescribed assessment areas.
Within 60 days after receiving the plan, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives an evaluation of the report
and assessment.

Battery storage and safety programs clarification

The committee strongly supports the continuation of funding
to the Department of Navy and the Office of Naval Research in
the advancement of its battery storage and safety programs to
support force protection and applied research. The committee
notes that for the purposes of clarifying the term ``battery
storage and safety'', the committee means those battery storage
and safety technologies and advancements which provide energy
resilience to the Department of Defense. The committee also
notes that in section 101, title 10, United States Code, the
term ``energy resilience'' means the ability to avoid, prepare
for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and
unanticipated energy disruptions in order to ensure energy
availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission
assurance and readiness, and other mission essential operations
related to readiness, and to execute or rapidly reestablish
mission essential requirements.

Battery storage technology

The committee recognizes that battery storage technology is
a vital component in micro-grid resiliency and energy security
and independence. The committee seeks further information
regarding the Department of Energy's advanced research and
development efforts to isolate and protect domestic micro-grids
from potential cyber-attacks through self-sustaining energy
infrastructure. The Department of Energy has recognized the
importance of shielding the nation's critical energy
infrastructure from cyber-attacks. Emerging hybrid technologies
are being used to develop micro-grids that can insulate
targeted areas from cyber threats. The committee recognizes
that integrating battery storage as an alternative for high-
voltage transmission lines enhances the ability for Department
of Defense facilities to access a consistent energy source and
continue operations.

Briefing on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry PFAS
report

The committee understands that the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) is in the process of completing toxicological
profiles for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfiuorooctane
suifonic acid (PFOS), perfiuorononanoic acid (PFNA) and
perfluorohexane suifonic acid (PFHxS) in drinking water,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq. The contamination of
the water supply resulting from the leeching of these chemicals
used in the military's firefighting foam in ground water
impacts the readiness of our troops and the health of our
active duty and reserve service members and their families. In
order to address the readiness issues associated with this
contamination, the committee requests a briefing on this ATSDR
report within thirty days.

Building energy resilience on military installations

The committee strongly supports recent efforts by the Army
to increase its energy resilience with a 50 megawatt multi-fuel
generation facility on Schofield Barracks. The committee notes
the facility will be able to provide the Army the first right
to power, a black start capability, and 100 percent of its
operational requirements for Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army
Airfield and Field Station Kunia in the event of an intentional
or unintentional power outage. Notably, the power plant will
have a minimum five days of fuel on site and a 30 day fuel
supply available on the island of Oahu. Not only do these kind
of cooperative agreements provide the Army the ability to
improve its installations without any capital investments of
its own, they also provide a combat capability that improves
readiness.
Due to its strategic location, the power facility remains
above the tsunami strike zone which not only directly benefits
the Army, but also will enhance the grid resilience and provide
an energy security benefit to the local community and medical
services. Notably, it is the only current baseload power
generation facility on the island of Oahu that is located above
a tsunami strike zone. Another notable and successful Army
example of building energy resilience on its military
installations, is Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain
Division, which now has the ability to power its installation
for over a month off the grid in the event of an outage. The
committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
pursue similar cooperative agreements, particularly in
locations that face high-costs of energy like Alaska and
Hawaii.
The committee particularly encourages distributed energy
projects that are strategically located in order to provide
energy security and resilience to military installations. The
use of non-Department or third party financing mechanisms, such
as power purchase agreements and energy savings performance
contracts, to pursue such large-scale energy resilience
projects is strongly encouraged.

Comptroller General review of Defense-wide Working Capital Fund
overhead charges and fees

The Defense-wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) is the
working capital fund managed by the defense agencies, and
consists of six activity groups. Three of these activity groups
are operated by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), two by the
Defense Information Systems Agency, and one by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service. These defense agencies use the
DWWCF cash balance to cover costs for providing services and
purchasing various commodities. The DWWCF is reimbursed through
charges to customers, including overhead and other fees.
The Department of Defense (DOD) manages working capital
funds, which were established to satisfy recurring DOD
requirements using a businesslike buyer-and-seller approach.
According to DOD's Financial Management Regulation, the goal of
the DWWCF is to remain revenue-neutral, allowing the fund to
break even over time. As of the end of fiscal year 2017, the
DWWCF held a cash balance of about $3.0 billion.
The committee is interested in understanding the activities
funded through the DWWCF, how rate structures are determined,
and options for achieving efficiencies.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate: (1) The activities the
defense agencies fund through overhead charges and fees
collected from customers, and how these activities differ from
those funded through annual appropriations; (2) Methods used to
determine the rate structure of overhead charges and fees; and
(3) Options, if any, that DOD has considered to adjust its
approach to managing overhead charges and fees to achieve
greater efficiencies or reduce costs.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate not later than April 15, 2019, with a final report
to follow.

Congressional notification of incidents

The committee is concerned that the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and the military departments have not promptly and
consistently notified the committee of the occurrence of
significant incidents and accidents. While certain military
departments have routinely sent timely notifications to the
committee, there has often been a lack of even basic
information communicated when troubling events have occurred.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to
establish a rigorous, well-defined process and system to
provide notifications to the committee for basic and initial
reporting of incidents such as, but not limited to: class A and
B mishaps for aircraft, ships and submarines, training
casualties and accidents, safety stand downs and operational
pauses, relief of command, significant explosions and fires at
installations, and significant security barrier breaches.

Corrosion prevention and oversight

The committee established Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight (CPO) in part to unify and strengthen Department of
Defense (DOD) efforts to address corrosion and its impacts on
our military weapon systems and infrastructure. Prior to CPO,
DOD corrosion prevention and control efforts were ineffective,
inefficient and lacked coordination across the military
services. The critical role CPO serves in this regard is
essential as DOD strives to restore full spectrum readiness and
sustain its weapons and installations.
The committee strongly supports DOD's March 2018 assessment
that reaffirms the value of CPO and strongly recommends that
``the CPO office be retained in order to continue an impressive
legacy of nearly 15 years of achieving significant cost savings
and improvements in the availability of department-wide weapons
systems, equipment and infrastructure, while enabling and
partnering with the services and industry to continually
improve corrosion reduction efforts.''
The committee notes that DOD's report and recommendation
make apparent that the authorities accorded CPO remain valid.
For example, in the assessment, DOD cites that CPO has achieved
a $2.0 billion reduction in the annual cost of corrosion,
increased the average availability of aircraft, ships and
ground vehicles by 10 percent, decreased the overall percentage
of corrosion-related maintenance by 4 percent, all while
reducing duplication and bureaucracy throughout DOD.
The committee is nevertheless concerned that efforts to
reorganize some DOD activities and considerations to
restructure CPO put at risk the office's ability to sustain and
build upon its impressive record of success. Were the status of
the office to significantly erode, DOD would likely revert back
to the fragmented and ineffective approach to corrosion
reduction that prompted the creation of CPO in the first place.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of United States to conduct a thorough review of the
restructured CPO and submit to the committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report no
later than December 1, 2018 that evaluates the extent the
restructure aligns with the original intent of section 2228,
title 10, United States Code, to make certain that the
restructured CPO has the ability to operate across Department-
wide activities such as research and development, operation and
maintenance, sustainment and acquisition for weapon systems and
infrastructure, as well as to serve as an overarching
facilitator and integrator across the various military
departments. Additionally, the report will evaluate the extent
to which the restructure will allow CPO to sustain and build
upon its successes in cost reduction, increases in asset
availability, and reduction in duplication of critical
corrosion prevention and mitigation activities.

Cost benefit analysis of alternative-fueled vehicles and infrastructure

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
maintains an inventory of 177,000 owned and leased nontactical
vehicles, including passenger, trucks and other vehicles, at a
cost of $874.0 million per year, and that increased use of
alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) would reduce petroleum
consumption and costs. The committee also notes that AFVs by
definition have a wide range of fuel sources from natural gas,
hydrogen, coal, ethanol and electricity. Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs) are one mechanism to allow the
purchase or lease of non-tactical AFVs and associated fueling
and charging infrastructure. ESPCs are third-party financed
contracts to achieve energy savings and benefits ancillary to
that purpose, such as reduced operation and maintenance costs.
While ESPC authority under 42 U.S.C. 8287 is currently limited
to energy savings measures applied to federal buildings and
facilities, the committee notes that such authority could also
be applied to AFVs and associated infrastructure. Therefore,
the committee directs the Director, Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis on
the business case for entering into ESPC agreements to support
the use of AFVs and the fueling or charging infrastructure
necessary for alternative fueled vehicles, and to provide a
briefing on the results of that analysis within 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.

Cost benefit analysis on conducting organic depot level maintenance on
the joint surveillance target attack radar system

The committee notes that the current depot maintenance
program for the joint surveillance target attack radar system
(JSTARS), currently conducted by a private contractor, has
experienced significant delays in maintenance cycles.
Contracted maintenance has also failed to meet the Air Force's
requirement to have no more than three aircraft in depot to
meet operational needs. The contractor averaged six aircraft in
depot during calendar year 2017. The Air Force was unable to
perform 179 sorties from November 2016 to October 2017,
including 8,500 Ready Aircrew Program events, which reduced
combat effectiveness. This diminished the Air Force's ability
to meet combatant command (COCOM) mission requirements and
Global Response Force taskings. In addition, the committee is
concerned that the Air Force was unable to support seven
sorties in support of COCOMs, and the Joint Staff denied
requests for JSTARS support due to low aircraft availability.
As a result of low aircraft availability forecast, the total
Global Force Management Allocation Plan offering was reduced
for fiscal year 2018.
The committee believes that cost and maintenance
efficiencies could be achieved by returning depot maintenance
responsibilities to the Air Force organic industrial base.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report that
describes and assesses the costs and benefits to the Air Force
of conducting depot-level maintenance on the JSTARS platform at
an organic depot in comparison to a private contractor, no
later than September 30, 2018.

Depot best practices

The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office has issued several reports on challenges experienced at
the organic maintenance depots, including challenges pertaining
to deteriorating equipment and facility condition, filling
critical personnel skills, meeting service repair needs, and
excesses in carryover of workload. These problems can lead to
delays in the maintenance of weapon systems that ultimately
affect readiness by impeding the services' ability to conduct
training and provide forces to perform missions around the
world. Despite these challenges, it is not clear the extent to
which the Department of Defense (DOD) is assessing and, to the
extent possible, mitigating the risk of maintenance delays when
identifying its depot workload requirements.
The committee further notes that while DOD has developed
some initiatives that are intended to help improve its depot
operations, such as the Navy's Shipyard Optimization Plan and
the DOD Maintenance Executive Steering Committee, it is not
clear if DOD is effectively sharing and implementing best
practices and lessons learned identified by its individual
depots. Therefore, section 346 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91),
directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees a ``comprehensive plan for the
sharing of best practices for depot-level maintenance among the
military services.'' The committee received the Secretary's
letter response pursuant to the requirement on March 26, 2018.
The committee finds that while the response describes the
existence of several groups, committees, and activities related
to the ``enterprise governance framework of joint
collaboration,'' the response does not include a comprehensive
plan for sharing of best practices for depot-level maintenance
as required by section 346.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report or reports to the
congressional defense committees, addressing: (1) To what
extent are DOD and the services sharing and implementing best
practices and lessons learned at individual depots with other
depots; (2) To what extent have specific weapon systems repair
activities gained benefits from implementation of such best
practices or lessons learned; (3) To what extent have DOD and
the services identified and quantified the key factors that
influence whether depots complete their weapon system
maintenance mission on time and shared these factors among
themselves; (4) To what extent do DOD and the services make
sure that depot workload requirements are generating required
depot capability and capacity e.g., skilled personnel,
sufficiency in facilities and equipment, assured availability
of supplies and materials or other relevant factors and, as
appropriate, share best practices and lessons learned among
themselves; (5) To what extent do DOD and the services identify
risk to meeting anticipated depot workload timeframes, develop
mitigation strategies to address that risk, and, as
appropriate, share their risk management strategies among
themselves.
The Comptroller General may also include other related
matters as deemed appropriate in order to provide a
comprehensive examination. The committee further directs the
Comptroller General to provide a preliminary briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the Comptroller General's
evaluation not later than April 30, 2019, with a report or
reports to follow.

Development of future fluorine-free fire fighting foams

The committee is strongly supportive of the Department of
Defense's (DOD) plans to develop future fluorine-free fire
fighting foams (F6). Once again this year, the committee has
increased funding for both the Strategic Environment Research
and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environment Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), largely in part to
develop, demonstrate, and validate a fluorine-free surfactant
that still meets military specification (MILSPEC) F-24385 and
mimics the fluorocarbon surfactant performance attributes of
aqueous film forming foam (AF3).
While AF3 performs well against fires, highly fluorinated
chemicals are highly persistent long after their use and have
been associated with serious health problems, such as cancer,
liver and thyroid disease, and immune system and development
effects, particularly in the case of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). The dangers of PFAS also prompted this
committee to authorize DOD and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention to conduct a nation-wide human health survey on
the effects of PFAS in sources of drinking water.
The committee is encouraged by and supportive of DOD
efforts to reduce the use of AF3 and substitute with a
perfluorooctane sulfonate-free firefighting foam C6. However,
even short-chain C6 may pose the same health risks as AF3 since
it has been documented that C6 can pass through granulated
activated charcoal water filters.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages DOD to use
funding increases in SERDP and ESTCP to develop, demonstrate,
validate and field F6. Notably, multiple countries, including
NATO allies, use fluorine-free firefighting foam at airports,
as well as the oil and gas industry. DOD has made encouraging
process to date, for example, the Naval Research Laboratory has
full strength basic tested and continues to test samples of
non-Fluorine foam that have been identified by industry, such
as silicon and oxygen combinations. Lastly, the committee
strongly encourages the Department of the Navy to amend MILSPEC
F-24385 to no longer require fluorine in AF3 and F6, as
appropriate.

Employment of Special Operations Forces

The committee has great interest in actions by the
Department of Defense to respond to the priorities identified
in the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and how they impact the
readiness and employment of Special Operations Forces (SOF). In
particular, the committee notes the important role of SOF in
supporting counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations
around the world. Almost 17 years since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, SOF remain in high demand by Geographic
Combatant Commanders and, as a result, continue to face high
operational and personnel tempo. In response to the stress on
the force, the committee notes that U.S. Special Operations
Command is undertaking initiatives to bring SOF into compliance
with Secretary of Defense directed deployment to dwell goals.
The committee notes that Department of Defense has a
limited number of SOF personnel and believes that an
appropriately trained and prepared SOF force of sufficient size
must be ready and available for contingency operations that may
involve a near-peer competitor as identified in the NDS.
Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Department to
review how it currently employs SOF in response to Geographic
Combatant Commander requirements to ensure sufficient numbers
of SOF are appropriately trained and ready to respond to
contingencies across the spectrum of conflict, including with a
near-peer competitor.

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training program

The committee is aware that readiness challenges continue
to face the Armed Forces due to budgetary constraints. The
committee continues to recognize the value of the Innovative
Readiness Training (IRT) program, which allows the Armed Forces
the most realistic, joint training opportunities for National
Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty members.
The committee values the IRT program for its low cost and
high benefit to achieving measurable military readiness. The
committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
increase utilization of IRT projects to provide mission-
essential training, prioritizing programs that directly support
the most challenging and relevant training opportunities and
increasing program outreach toward identifying quality training
opportunities in the most logistically challenging geographical
areas. Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited
to, constructing rural roads and airplane runways, small
building, and warehouse construction in remote areas,
transportation of medical supplies, and military readiness
training in the areas of engineering, health care, and
transportation for under-served communities.
The committee understands the IRT program offers complex
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and
international crises. The committee is also aware that states
that utilize the IRT program include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
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.

Establishment of the energy resilience project development and
implementation office

The committee is encouraged by the progress the Department
of Defense has made to promote energy resilience, efficiency,
and distributed energy across its military installations with
limited resources and personnel to accomplish these priorities.
However, the committee recognizes that vulnerabilities to
energy supplied to military installations and operations place
our national security at risk. Further, senior Department
officials continue to express concern to the committee on the
ability of the Department to keep pace with these threats and
accelerate energy resilience project development due to
resource constraints, the inability to retain and recruit
qualified energy and technical professionals, and potential
flexibility in existing authorities.
The committee strongly supports efforts by the military
departments and defense agencies to increase its energy
resilience with targeted and prioritized decisions to procure
or upgrade infrastructure, distribution systems, equipment,
fuel, and energy generation facilities. Further, the committee
strongly supports the department's alternative financing
pursuits and notes that it is uniquely positioned to develop
energy resilience projects on its military installations to
remediate risks from commercial electric and fuel grid
disruptions. Not only do alternative financing agreements
provide the department the ability to improve its installations
without any capital investments of its own, they also provide a
combat capability that improve the department's national
security and readiness posture. The committee notes that these
public and private sector partnerships are essential to advance
the department's national security strategy, and that these
partnerships should support integration of a defense workforce
with science, technology, engineering, economic, and financial
backgrounds to communicate with the private sector.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to work with the secretaries of the military departments, along
with the defense agencies, to conduct an investigation for a
central office to accelerate energy resilience project
development and implementation. The Secretary should consider
equitable representation from the military departments and
defense agencies during the review, and consult with the
services and defense agencies when providing a recommendation.
The review should include, at a minimum, the following: (1) A
review of lessons learned from existing service execution
offices such as the Navy's Resilient Energy Program Office, the
Army's Office of Energy Initiatives, and the Air Force's Office
of Energy Assurance; (2) Personnel skills, manning, and
resources needed to establish the office; (3) The appropriate
organizational reporting structure of such an office; (4)
Strategy, mission, and performance goals the office would
pursue (to include the scope of projects considered and funding
strategy considerations); (5) Recruitment, retention, and
training strategy; and (6) Legislative authorities and other
recommendations to consider for the establishment of an office
to accelerate energy resilience project development. Lastly,
the Secretary shall brief the committee on the results of its
review not later than March 1, 2019.

Establishment of the occupational group for federal energy managers

Guidance on utility privatization contracts

The committee supports the conveyance of utility systems to
private entities and is aware of the increased energy
resilience and reliability that has resulted at installations
where this has occurred, but notes that restrictions on
operation and maintenance funds have slowed progress on
critical projects that are required to increase energy
resilience and reliability. The committee is also aware of
efforts undertaken by the Army to encourage Army commands to
use available operation and maintenance funds for utility
infrastructure improvements associated with privatized utility
systems, and encourages the Department of Defense and the other
services to provide similar guidance to clarify and better
leverage operation and maintenance funds for utility
improvements with utilities privatization contracts to meet
energy resilience and installation readiness requirements.

High purity aluminum

The committee recognizes the importance of high purity
aluminum (HPA) to meet national security requirements of
manufacturing and weapon system performance. HPA plays a
critical role in defense platforms such as in the bulkheads for
the F-35 and the advanced armor for the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle. HPA is also used to make alloys that are used in other
defense and space platforms. The demand for HPA is expected to
continue to increase as the Department of Defense ramps up
production on key next generation air and ground platforms and
the need for weight reduction remains a key requirement. The
committee understands that the United States currently has only
two domestic producers of HPA and relies on imports from
Russia, the Middle East, and elsewhere to meet demand.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to take affirmative steps to maintain secure sources of
supply for HPA and to consider investing in appropriate
improvements to make the production of domestic HPA more
efficient and available than through the traditional smelting
process.

High-energy intensity report

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) required the
then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries
responsible for energy, installations, and environment of the
military services, to submit a report on efforts to achieve
cost savings at military installations with high levels of
energy intensity. The committee notes that this report is now
over six months overdue. The committee continues to believe
that energy costs in areas of high-energy intensity is a
critical issue that should be addressed. Accordingly, the
committee encourages the Under Secretary of Acquisition and
Sustainment to promptly complete the report and submit it to
the congressional defense committees.

High-pressure cold spray repair

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
using high-pressure cold spray repair, a solid-state metal
additive manufacturing technology that is capable of reapplying
metal to highly worn or corroded metal surfaces without
damaging the base metal. The committee understands this
technology would restore the strength and serviceability of
parts that previously would require replacement. The committee
notes this technology could enable more cost-effective and
timely maintenance and has been used by the Department of the
Navy to achieve cost savings for the repair of critical
components. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary
of the Navy to expand the use of this technology for the
development of new repair processes for additional Navy
components.

Leveraging non-Department funds to address infrastructure maintenance
backlogs and project delays

The committee is strongly encouraged by the Department of
Defense (DOD) and its efforts to improve energy resilience and
security infrastructure on its installations. For example, DOD
has turned to the use of energy savings performance contracts
(ESPCs) as one means to leverage private sector financing and
investments which are paid back over time by DOD through
measured and verified energy-related savings. The committee
strongly encourages DOD to incorporate energy resilience and
security measures into its projects and contracts pursued
through non-Department funding.
The committee also recognizes that DOD has historically
prioritized resources for its operations and weapons
modernization over its facilities sustainment restoration and
modernization (FSRM) accounts, which has resulted in a
significant infrastructure maintenance backlog, including older
and deteriorating facilities, which in turn degrades readiness
and quality of life for warfighters.
In order to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog,
increase the magnitude of capital improvements, costs savings,
and cost avoidance for DOD, the committee strongly encourages
the Department and its military installations to leverage its
FSRM accounts, in combination with third-party and non-
Department funding sources and financed energy savings
projects, to maximize energy infrastructure investments through
mechanisms like ESPCs and utility energy service contracts
(UESC). As such, FSRM funds should be used for one-time
payments upon the award of new ESPC and UESC projects and as
partial payments for recurring operation and maintenance
activities.
Additionally, the committee remains concerned that DOD has
failed to streamline delays encountered during the ESPC, UESC,
and power purchase agreement processes, which could otherwise
assist in decreasing the infrastructure maintenance backlog and
increase installation resilience that is critical to mission
assurance.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish a policy to better leverage non-Department funding
to address its infrastructure maintenance backlog and energy
resilience requirements, including setting a Department
performance contracting goal along with a tracking system to
identify and address project phase bottlenecks, with a timeline
goal of 18 months from notice of opportunity to notice of
intent to award. The Secretary shall brief the committee on its
progress no later than March 1, 2019.

Light emitting diodes for aviation applications

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts by the Services
and the Defense Logistics Agency to increase the utilization of
light emitting diodes (LED) for aviation applications, both
through retrofitting existing aircraft and requiring LEDs for
exterior and interior use on new designs. In addition to their
long life, high reliability, and reduced energy consumption,
LEDs reduce glare and interference with night vision equipment.
Most commercial airplanes use LEDs for navigation, position,
beacon, anti-collision, cabin, and cargo lighting. Accordingly,
the committee encourages the services to retrofit LEDs onto
existing aircraft when they undergo modification and
maintenance. The committee also encourages the services to
establish LED requirements for ongoing aviation development and
acquisitions, such as the Long Range Strike Bomber and unmanned
aerial vehicles.

M240 medium machine gun modernization

The committee is concerned the Army may be assuming too
much risk in the small arms industrial base with respect to the
family of M240 medium machine guns. Current funding profiles
could lead to a potential production line shutdown. The
shutdown of existing production lines could create significant
operational impacts if requirements change. The committee notes
that the budget request included $2.1 million for M240
production; however, no funding is projected for new production
in fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2021.
The committee encourages the Army to closely monitor this
critical industrial base and work with the original equipment
manufacturer to develop courses of action to ensure the
production line remains viable and capable of supporting
potential increased requirements. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the committee by
September 28, 2018. This briefing shall include, at a minimum:
(1) The projected service life of the current M240 inventory;
(2) The Army's plan and schedule to replace the current M240
inventory either with newer M240 models or an entirely new
system; (3) How the Army will address increased requirements
caused by growth in end strength and combat formations; (4)
Relevant cost analysis for restarting the M240 production line
after a period of dormancy; and (5) A description of the
capacity challenges and minimum sustaining production rates
with regard to the original equipment manufacturer.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a study to the committee by October 1, 2018, on
the feasibility of transitioning the existing fleet of M240B
medium machine guns to the lighter-weight M240L configuration.
This assessment shall take into consideration the estimated
costs associated with this transition to include the transition
of current inventories of M240Bs to the M240L variant.

Maintaining current balance of government and private contractors under
10 U.S.C. 2466

The committee continues to recognize the importance of
section 2466, title 10, United States Code, in its sustainment
of our military readiness. The committee continues to view core
depot level workload as synonymous with organic workload, and
core workload should be accomplished by government employees in
facilities owned and operated by the United States. While the
committee supports privatization of functions that are not
inherently governmental in nature, including some depot
maintenance of above core systems, the committee does not
support the wholesale privatization of those functions
necessary to ensure readiness and to defend the United States
and our allies during periods of armed conflict. Depot
maintenance is inherently governmental when conducted on
mission essential weapons systems used in combat, combat
support, combat service support, and combat readiness training.
Congressional support of privatization initiatives is based
on the achievement of cost savings to the government as a
result of a competitive marketplace.
The committee continues to see that competition, rather
than privatization, may achieve the greatest degree of
potential savings. To preserve our military readiness, the
Department of Defense should sustain the organic capability and
capacity to maintain and repair mission-essential equipment
associated with combat, including new weapons systems to the
greatest extent possible. Finally, to ensure efficient use of
organic maintenance and repair capacity, as well as the best
value to the taxpayer, we believe the Department of Defense
must continue to effectively utilize its logistics facilities.

Marine Corps Base of the Future

As noted by the Marine Corps, the January 2017 tornado
resulted in ``extensive damage requiring significant repair and
construction'' at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany. That
challenge prompted an opportunity to identify inadequate
command and control, a misaligned workforce, excess
infrastructure, and the desire to have an island capability for
energy resilience.
In light of the continued deferment of facilities
sustainment restoration and modernization funding by the
Department, the committee is strongly supportive of the recent
efforts by the Marine Corps to hold its inaugural Base of the
Future Symposium, which sought collaboration from local
communities, private industry, government officials and
academia in order to improve installation design and services
that are responsive, resilient, and improve process. The
committee continues to support the concepts of increasing
operational effectiveness, readiness, quality of life, safety
and efficiency on installations while pursuing techniques and
technologies that leverage data analytics, automation,
robotics, and the internet of things.

Marine Corps Policy on flame-resistant uniforms

The committee notes the Marine Corps issues the Enhanced
Flame Resistant Combat Ensemble (EFRCE) to deploying Marines
and Sailors. The EFRCE is the latest upgrade to the Marine
Corps' Flame-Resistant Combat Ensemble inventory, updating a
long-sleeve shirt and trousers with a more durable and better
performing flame resistant material that allows the uniform to
self-extinguish reducing the incidence and severity of burn
injuries.
The committee commends the Marine Corps' efforts to develop
and field high performance flame resistant clothing to
deploying Marines. However, the committee is concerned the
EFRCE is only issued to select deploying marines and sailors.
The committee believes the same high performance and flame-
resistant protection capabilities provided by the EFRCE in
combat operations could also be applied for domestic training
and field exercises in the United States, if deemed
operationally relevant.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to provide a briefing to the committee by March 1, 2019,
on steps being taken to evaluate the EFRCE and other flame
resistant combat uniforms, items to include: (1) A market
survey of materials that could be used in a Flame Resistant
(FR) Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU) uniform; (2) A
cost benefit analysis of issuing EFRCE or a FR MCCUU at initial
entry rather than issuing MCCU at initial entry; (3) The near-
term policy for authorizing use in appropriate field exercises
and training scenarios at unit commander's discretion; and (4)
The advisability and feasibility of implementing a long-term
fielding plan for incorporating the EFRCE and/or other flame
resistant combat uniforms as organizational equipment in
appropriate units.

Military working dogs

As reflected in the findings of the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DODIG) report 2018-81, the committee remains
concerned that a lack of guidance remains, particularly for
nontraditional military working dog (MWD) programs that are not
directly supported by the 341st Training Squadron, 37th
Training Wing, at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in collaboration with the secretaries of the other
military departments with MWD assets to fully implement the
recommendations from DODIG report 2018-81.
The committee further directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in collaboration with the secretaries of the other
military departments with MWD assets, to submit a report not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, that
examines the status of all MWDs since 2013 and addresses at a
minimum, the following: (1) The number of MWDs transferred from
overseas to the United States for retirement; (2) The number of
MWDs overseas that did not transfer to the United States and
their ultimate disposition or destination; (3) The number of
MWDs transferred to law enforcement agencies; (4) The number of
MWDs dogs that were transferred to one of their handlers; (5) A
description of the actions taken by the military to notify
current or previous handlers of the opportunity to adopt their
MWD; (6) A description of the oversight of the adoption process
to ensure that MWDs are placed in appropriate settings; and (7)
Examine options and potential costs of assisting those handlers
who adopt MWDs with veterinary care for the MWD retirees.
The committee urges the services to have Contractor Working
Dog (CWD) assets operate under the same regulations as MWDs and
recommends the services ensure such requirements are provided
for all future CWD programs.

Navy next generation small arms weapons training and readiness
requirements

The committee is concerned that after 5 years, the Navy has
not yet developed a next generation, comprehensive strategy to
address the significant small arms training shortfalls
identified in the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting report and
subsequent shooting incidences.
As noted in prior National Defense Authorization Acts, the
committee understands that the Navy Expeditionary Combat
Command (NECC) and the Navy Strategic Systems Program (SSP)
have successfully demonstrated an innovative synthetic small
arms training approach capable of providing consistent,
metrics-based proof of live-fire transfer across various skill
levels for individual and crew-served training, while reducing
ammunition and training time costs. NECC and SSP's advanced
human performance, cognitive, and metrics driven training
approach enforces improvements in reaction time, precision
under stress, and decision-making skills to aid long-standing
Navy challenges in meeting hostile intent determination and
escalation of force decisions. Despite the success of these
programs, and their alignment with a Department of Defense-wide
move toward advanced training approaches that leverage human
performance techniques and data collection as key program
requirements, the committee is concerned that other Navy
commands continue to rely on legacy simulation systems that are
not required to prove their effectiveness, and have not given
serious consideration to new, innovative metric-based synthetic
training programs capable of achieving, and validating Navy
security force and fleet-wide small arms tactical and crew-
served readiness improvements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to provide the committee with a briefing by February 1,
2019 detailing the Navy's comprehensive plan to meet the
enhanced small arms training advancements discussed above. The
briefing shall include, but not be limited to, how the Navy
will: (1) Address afloat and ashore security forces and Navy
Installation Command small arms training improvements outlined
in the 2013 Washington Navy Yard report; (2) Meet the unique
requirements for small arms and improved crew-served weapons
training and effectiveness under U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and
the Navy Criminal Investigative Service; (3) Meet the key
training objectives for hostile intent determination and
escalation of force requirements described above; (4) Validate
that human performance, readiness metrics, and proof of live-
fire transfer will be key capability requirements of the Navy's
plan; and (5) Develop an acquisition strategy that requires
legacy and future small arms simulation systems to
competitively demonstrate their ability to meet rigorous next
generation readiness requirements outlined above as a pre-
requisite to receiving new or continued funding in fiscal year
2019 and future years.

Operational energy technologies

The committee is aware of a variety of technologies that
may improve operational flexibility, enhance logistics, and
reduce supply lines for forces operating in deployed
environments, to include the ability to convert natural gas to
tactical fuels, improve power generation, distribution, and
storage in deployed environments, and increase the range and
capability of tactical vehicles. The committee is supportive of
these efforts and encourages the Department of Defense to
transition such natural gas to tactical fuel technologies from
the research and development stage in support of operational
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, not later than March 1, 2019, that outlines steps
the Department is taking, to include resourcing and timelines
for maturation of operational energy technologies, to
transition such technologies to full scale demonstrations and
commercial production.

Paint training programs

The committee believes that maximum efficiency is critical
for more than 350 military paint facilities that perform
painting and coating operations, including corrosion prevention
and control, radar absorption, and camouflage. The committee
understands that the Department of Defense's operations require
stringent specifications for the coating of each piece of
equipment.
The committee understands that paint training programs
provide training for military painters and coating operations.
The committee notes that paint training programs can save the
Department time and funding resources by using advanced
technology and equipment along with hands-on training to
effectively apply coatings and reduce waste. Additionally,
increasing coating transfer efficiency and preventing corrosion
and rework can improve asset readiness. Furthermore, the
committee understands that paint training programs consistently
update to the latest advancements in coatings, application
equipment, and technology. Lastly, the committee notes that the
paint training programs have trained hundreds of military and
contract painters, serving all of the military departments.

Predicting soil-terrain-atmospheric conditions

The committee is aware of the valuable support the U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center-Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory provides in rapidly and
accurately predicting key terrestrial properties (e.g. soil/
dust, water, snow, vegetation) in forward operating areas and
extreme environments. Given the broad spectrum and diversity of
these conditions, the committee strongly recommends that the
Army accelerate its collection of this data to support the full
spectrum of military activities including terrestrial aircraft
operations and identifying improvised landing zones, ground
mobility, dust emission, and monitoring the availability of
vital water resources. The committee also strongly encourages
developing new methods of linking variable and frequently
changing land surface-atmospheric conditions on the deployment
and performance of vital sensor-based tactical systems.
In order to enhance the ability to rapidly and accurately
predict the full spectrum of these terrestrial properties, the
committee strongly urges the expanded use of remotely collected
data, which directly benefits military operations, especially
for adaptive and expedient force protection and maneuvers
across highly variable terrain in all military operating
environments and under variable climate and weather conditions.

Privatization of stormwater conveyance systems

The committee remains concerned with the ability of the
Department of Defense's (DOD) infrastructure to handle
stormwater at many of its installations. Additionally, the
committee is discouraged with DOD's failure to comply with
section 2813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), which stated that it was
the sense of Congress that ``wastewater'' captures stormwater
within the definition of section 2688(i) of title 10, United
States Code. Not utilizing privatization to repair aging
infrastructure at Fort Benning, for example, resulted in $3.5
million dollars' worth of damage due to catastrophic failures
suffered during a December 2015 storm. The committee directs
the Department of Defense to provide a report no later than
December 1, 2018, on installation storm water conveyance
systems and plans on addressing any shortcomings that currently
exist.

Report on transportation infrastructure critical to Eastern Range space
operations

The committee notes that the Indian River Bridge in Florida
is critical to the ability of the Department of Defense to
provide space launch and range operations in support of the
nation's objectives. The Indian River Bridge is a federally
owned property used by two federal agencies, and the
replacement of the bridge requires a joint solution to ensure
that the bridge is able to support national security space
payloads. The committee also notes that the Secretary of the
Air Force, who carries out the preponderance of space
activities within the Department, must be included in the
development of any solution with respect to the Indian River
Bridge to ensure that space launch operations are not affected
by the replacement of such bridge.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to submit to the
congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 2018,
a report on the transportation infrastructure that is critical
to the ability of the Department to use the Eastern Range in
Cape Canaveral, Florida, for space launch operations. The
report shall include: (1) An identification of Department and
non-Department transportation infrastructure supporting the
Eastern Range that is critical to Department space operations,
including payload processing, delivery, and Department-operated
launch capabilities; (2) An assessment of the ability of such
transportation infrastructure or alternatives to safely
transport all Department mission payloads during the period
beginning on the first day of fiscal year 2019 and ending on
the last day of fiscal year 2030; (3) An analysis of the impact
on Department space launch operations of an inability of such
transportation infrastructure to safely transport mission
payloads through fiscal year 2030; and (4) A detailed plan to
ensure that payload processing, delivery, and Department-
operated launch capabilities are unencumbered by a failure in
such transportation infrastructure.
The report may contain a classified annex, if deemed
appropriate.

Report on universal camouflage inventory and use

The committee supports the Army's transition from Universal
Camouflage Pattern (UCP) to Operational Camouflage Pattern
(OCP) for soldier combat uniforms and organizational clothing
and individual equipment (OCIE). The committee is very
supportive of the Air Force's recent decision to replace the
Airman Battle Uniform and adopt OCP for all of its combat
uniforms. The committee is also aware of a significant current
inventory of OCIE in UCP, which includes, but is not limited
to, Modular Lightweight Load Carrying Equipment and Improved
Outer Tactical Vests.
The committee understands that the Army Program Manager for
Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment (PM SPIE) is
currently evaluating overdye technologies and processes. This
evaluation could validate technology and processes for UCP
printed products to be altered into a color palette that blends
with the new down selected camouflage prints and continues to
pass all necessary requirements. The committee believes that
these overdye technologies and processes could save significant
resources, possibly up to 70 percent of the current item price,
as the Army transitions to OCP.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than August 31, 2018. The report shall
include, but is not limited to, defining current efforts
underway to repurpose and field UCP clothing and equipment,
efforts underway within PM SPIE to evaluate overdye
technologies and processes, and a plan with cost and timelines
to field these technologies and processes towards addressing an
economically viable drawdown and use of otherwise obsolete OCIE
in UCP.

Review of Department of Defense mission assurance program

The committee continues to be supportive of the Department
of Defense's (DOD) issued mission assurance policy and
strategy. However, the committee is concerned there may not be
a robust mission assurance framework to fully consider mission,
installation, facility, and infrastructure requirements (e.g.
utility, water and wastewater, communication, and
transportation systems), when developing critical mission
assurance requirements.
The committee is also concerned that information and data
sharing challenges persist among installation, facility,
infrastructure, and mission personnel on military
installations. The committee believes that a more robust and
comprehensive mission assurance framework needs to be
considered, and that a process to share mission assurance
information and data could help inform the development of
critical mission requirements that support budgetary decisions.
Prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have
identified similar challenges with DOD's identification and
prioritization of defense critical infrastructure efforts. In
2008, the GAO identified several management weaknesses in DOD's
implementation of the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program
(DCIP) to comprehensively account for critical mission
requirements (GAO-08-373R, GAO-08-851, and GAO-09-42). For
example, the GAO reported that DOD lacks sufficient information
to determine the full extent of the risks and vulnerabilities
to critical assets. The GAO also identified the lack of
infrastructure-related information regarding the networks,
assets, points of service, and inter- and intra-dependencies;
and, that existing programs did not routinely coordinate or
share details of critical mission requirements with
complementary DOD mission assurance programs.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate DOD's Mission Assurance
program. The GAO review should assess the extent to which: (1)
DOD fully takes into consideration supporting installation,
mission operator, and critical supporting infrastructure (such
as utility, water and wastewater, communication, and
transportation systems) when developing critical mission
assurance requirements; (2) The data management systems, such
as the strategic mission assurance data system and mission
assurance risk management system, accurately collect and take
into account infrastructure-related information regarding the
networks, assets, points of service, and inter- and intra-
dependencies; (3) Metrics are in place to measure performance
of achieving critical mission assurance requirements; (4)
Processes are established to share information and data to
inform development of critical mission requirements and
budgetary decisions, and the extent to which these processes
affected budgetary decisions; and (5) The military services
have complied with existing DOD mission assurance requirements
and policies.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to brief the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
March 28, 2019, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation with a report to be completed by July 30,
2019. A classified annex may be provided, as appropriate.

Review of the Navy's shipyard improvement plan

The committee notes that the Navy's four public shipyards
are critical to maintaining fleet readiness and supporting
ongoing operations involving the Navy's nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers and submarines. However, as the Comptroller
General reported in 2017, the condition of the Navy's shipyards
is poor and they have not been fully meeting the Navy's
operational needs. Previous efforts to address these issues
have been inadequate, in part because the Navy lacked results-
oriented elements. Notably, the Navy presented its Shipyard
Optimization Plan in February 2018, which the Navy describes as
the first phase of a larger effort. The committee believes the
Navy's assessment of public shipyard dry dock capacity is
particularly important, as it identifies 67 of 68 deferred
maintenance availabilities under the status quo, all of which
would be restored upon making the public shipyard dry dock
investment recommended by the report.
The committee is encouraged by the Navy's efforts to
develop a long-term and comprehensive plan, yet the committee
is also concerned about the extent to which the Navy's plan
incorporates the recommended elements for effectively managing
its shipyard capital investments and fully identifies the
funding and authorities needed to eliminate maintenance
backlogs.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees regarding the Navy's effort to address its
public shipyard shortfalls. The report should evaluate the
extent to which the Navy's plan: (1) Addresses infrastructure
deficiencies needed to support the current and 30-year force
structure projections, includes metrics and other results-
oriented elements to guide shipyard capital investments and
sustain progress in addressing the shipyards' needs; (2)
Includes a five-year workload management plan for the entire
nuclear maintenance enterprise, both public- and private-sector
capacities, that limits lost operational days; (3) Identifies
the funding and authorities required to eliminate maintenance
backlogs and return to predictable, sustainable, and affordable
ship maintenance availabilities for the planned navy force
structure; and (4) Any other related matters the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than
March 15, 2019, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation, with the report to follow at a date to be
determined at the time of the briefing.

Rough terrain container handler

The committee notes the wide-ranging efforts of the
military logistics community to provide vital resources for the
warfighter. However, the committee remains concerned by the
lack of a comprehensive and appropriately resourced sustainment
strategy for RT240 Rough Terrain Container Handler (RTCH)
despite the Department of Defense (DOD)'s inventory of over
1,100 RTCHs on hand and the hundreds of thousands ISO
containers within the DOD's purview.
The committee is concerned by the age of the RTCH fleet,
the rumored overall poor readiness of the systems on hand, and
notes that there is not a recapitalization program for these
systems, nor a long-term strategy to modernize a fleet that was
procured in 1998. The committee believes the Army's lack of a
RTCH Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) will lead to further
reduced readiness and an eventual budget request to replace the
RTCH with new equipment.
Of special concern is the differing paths the Army has
taken compared to the Marine Corps, which has initiated a RTCH
SLEP beginning in fiscal year 2019. The Marine Corps has
requested $8.1 million beginning in 2019 to begin a multi-year
program to execute a SLEP for 117 of their 160 vehicles. The
Army has chosen not to follow this model for its almost 1000
vehicles and is instead using an internal Operation and
Maintenance, Army fund to perform its own program to sustain
the fleet. As the Marine Corps is specifically investing in
modern technology to harvest new capabilities and working with
industry to speed the process of repairing their war weary
systems, there is a clear divergence in the two programs.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Army to
develop plans to sustain the RTCH fleet, preserve the RTCH
industrial base, both within and outside the Army, improve
readiness and guarantee RTCH availability for operations into
the 2030s. It requests a briefing to the Committee on those
plans, and how current RTCH readiness meet U.S. Transportation
Command (TRANSCOM) logistics requirements, within 60 days of
bill passage.
In addition, since the Army and Marine Corps are pursuing
different strategies to sustain this critical operational
capability, the committee is interested in the potential impact
of the two strategies on sustainment of this $1.0 billion
investment made by DOD over the past two decades. Therefore,
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to: (1) Review the readiness and condition of the RTCH
fleets in the Army and Marine Corps; (2) Identify, analyze, and
compare the Army's and Marine Corps' sustainment strategies for
their respective RTCH fleets, including whether these
approaches have assessed available modernization capabilities
that would enhance joint deployability; (3) Describe and assess
any strategic risks associated with the Army's and Marine
Corps' approaches to modernizing their respective RTCH fleets
to meet TRANSCOM logistics requirements; and (4) Report on any
other related matters the Comptroller General deems
appropriate.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the
Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1,
2019, on preliminary observations of the Comptroller General's
evaluation, with a report to follow at a date to be determined
at the time of the briefing.

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command common and logistics broker
waiver process

The committee requests that the Secretary of the Army
explore a waiver process within the Army Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command (SDDC) for Department of Defense
transportation officers who utilize the Automated
Transportation Request System. This process may include
allowing a SDDC registered transportation service provider
freight carrier to serve as a common and logistics company or
freight broker in such instances when it is determined by the
transportation officer that cost and performance are better
served by such action.
The committee urges this review in order to ensure that
transportation officers are able to utilize those freight
carriers best suited to serve the warfighter in terms of
performance and cost.

Use of fire extinguishers in Department of Defense facilities and
National Model Codes

The committee is aware that portable fire extinguishers are
essential to the safety of members of the Armed Forces and
their families. The protection of service members and their
families is imperative to the readiness of the force. Every
Department building should apply building and fire codes that
are in line with national model codes and state building and
fire codes. The committee notes that National model codes
promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association and the
International Code Council have been adopted by almost every
state in the nation. The committee is concerned that the
removal of these devices and subsequent adherence to the change
in United Facilities Criteria has the potential to harm force
readiness and protection service wide.
The current United Facilities Criteria should be updated to
ensure it provides members of the Armed Forces, their families
and other Department of Defense personnel with fire protection
standards that are met by their civilian counterparts,
including requiring portable fire extinguishers on military
installations.

Use of Global Combat Support System-Army by deployed units

The committee notes that the Global Combat Support System-
Army (GCSS-Army) is a defense business system that is being
acquired to replace several separate systems used to manage
critical logistics support activities at Army units, such as
ordering and tracking supplies, maintaining accountability of
organizational equipment, and monitoring unit maintenance. The
committee understands that units will use GCSS-Army not only
when they are at their home station, but also when they are
deployed. In September 2014, the Comptroller General released
``DOD Business Systems Modernization'' (GAO-14-470), which
reviewed the early implementation of GCSS-Army at selected
units and found that it was generally meeting their logistics
requirements. At that time, the full system capability had been
fielded to very few units, and the units were not deployed when
using the system. The committee continues to be interested in
the Army's progress and plans for using GCSS-Army to support
military operations.

Water resources for Department of Defense installations

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), near term
weather variability such as changes in the number of
consecutive days of high or low precipitation as well as
increases in the extent and duration of droughts may exacerbate
water shortages. DOD has stated that potential effects of water
shortages on the Department's installations include the
following: disruption to--and competition for-reliable fresh
water supplies; and reduced--or changed-availability and access
to water resources to support personnel.
Moreover, increasing demand for water places stress on the
finite supplies of water that DOD installations depend on to
fulfill their missions and make the management of water
resources in the future more challenging if there is
competition for fresh water. Drought conditions can impact
military training when live fire training must be curtailed to
avoid inadvertently starting wildfires. Water scarcity--the
increased potential for the reduction in or disruption of an
installation's reliable access to water--has already caused DOD
installations in the United States to implement aggressive
water conservation and reuse measures. DOD has conducted
studies that indicate critical installations could run out of
water within two decades.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to conduct a review of the Department's water resource
management practices and the identified or potential impacts
from water scarcity and brief the committee no later than
January 30, 2019. At a minimum, the review shall answer: (1)
How do selected DOD missions and installations rely on water
and what are the potential impacts of water scarcity on DOD
installations and mission capability; (2) To what extent have
DOD installations experienced increasing water scarcity or
drought conditions since 2014 and how has DOD mitigated any
such impacts; (3) What challenges does DOD face, if any, in
mitigating the impacts of water scarcity; and (4) To what
extent does DOD ensure that installations take full advantage
of all available sources of fresh water and what impediments if
any exist that hamper the ability to access fresh water.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Active-Duty end strengths for fiscal year 2019, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Change from
FY 2018 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2019 FY 2018
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 483,500 487,500 485,741 -1,759 +2,241
Navy.......................................... 327,900 335,400 331,900 -3,500 +4,000
Marine Corps.................................. 186,000 186,100 186,100 0 +100
Air Force..................................... 325,100 329,100 325,720 -3,380 +620
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 1,322,500 1,338,100 1,329,461 -8,639 +6,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The committee notes that the national unemployment rate is
at a 10-year low point. In the past, when national unemployment
was low and the military sought large end strength increases,
the all-volunteer force has struggled to recruit and retain
sufficient numbers of high-quality servicemembers. Therefore,
the committee recommends end strength increases aligned with
historical growth and tied to specific missions.
The committee encourages the Army to use the additional end
strength provided by this section to support priorities
identified in the National Defense Strategy, such as Short
Range Air Defense Battalions, Indirect Fire Protection
Capabilities, Multiple Launch Rocket System Battalions, Air
Defense Artillery Brigade Headquarters, Corps Headquarters in
Europe, and the requisite trainees, transients, holdees, and
students.
For the Navy, the provision would authorize one of the
largest year-to-year end strength increase since the end of the
Cold War. While the committee recognizes the need for a larger
end strength to meet future fleet demands, the Navy is
unaccustomed to rapid growth and must demonstrate its ability
to responsibly meet end strength targets.
For the Marine Corps, modest growth supports emerging
demands for special operations forces enabler personnel and is
in line with historical end strength increases.
For the Air Force, the provision would authorize end
strength growth in line with historic achievable levels to
increase pilot and enlisted aircrew production.
The committee notes that current law authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to approve up to a 3 percent Active-Duty
end strength variance from the levels authorized by Congress.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to make use
of this authority if the military services demonstrate the
ability to responsibly grow beyond authorized levels.
End strengths for commissioned officers on active duty in certain
grades (sec. 402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Active-Duty end strengths for officers in grades of major,
lieutenant colonel, and colonel, and Navy grades of lieutenant
commander, commander, and captain as of September 30, 2019, as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major/ Lieutenant
Service Lieutenant Colonel/ Colonel/
Commander Commander Captain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................................... 15,470 8,700 3,970
Navy............................................................... 11,010 6,670 3,060
Marine Corps....................................................... 3,920 1,910 650
Air Force.......................................................... 13,920 10,270 3,450
--------------------------------------------
DOD Total...................................................... 44,320 27,550 11,130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The end strength authorizations contained in this provision
are aligned with the projections included in the fiscal year
2018 Defense Manpower Requirements Report. The committee notes
that the fiscal year 2019 Defense Manpower Requirements Report
was not submitted by the legally specified due date and was
therefore not considered for the purposes of this provision.

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 2019, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Change from
FY 2018 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2019 FY 2018
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 343,500 343,500 343,500 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 199,500 199,500 199,500 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 59,000 59,100 59,000 -100 0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 106,600 107,100 106,600 -500 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 69,800 70,000 69,800 -200 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 816,900 817,700 816,900 0 0
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 2019, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Change from
FY 2018 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2019 FY 2018
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 30,155 30,595 30,155 -440 0
Army Reserve.................................. 16,261 16,386 16,261 -125 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 10,101 10,110 10,101 -9 0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 16,260 19,861 19,450 -411 3,190
Air Force Reserve............................. 3,588 3,849 3,588 -261 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 78,626 83,062 81,816 -1,246 3,190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last
day of fiscal year 2019, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Change from
FY 2018 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2019 FY 2018
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 22,294 22,294 22,294 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 6,492 7,495 6,492 -1,003 0
Air National Guard............................ 19,135 18,969 18,969 0 -166
Air Force Reserve............................. 8,880 9,908 8,880 -973 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 56,801 58,666 56,635 -1,976 -166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 414)

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, 2019, as
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Change from
FY 2018 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2019 FY 2018
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

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

Limitation on use of funds for personnel in fiscal year 2019 in excess
of statutorily specified end strengths for fiscal year 2018
(sec. 422)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from increasing end strengths for the
various military departments and components beyond the levels
authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) until the Secretary of Defense
submits the report on ``Highest-Priority Roles and Missions of
the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces'' required
elsewhere in this Act.

Budget Items

Military personnel funding changes

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

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Military personnel underexecution..................... -1,937.1
End strength reduction................................ -993.2
Foreign currency fluctuation.......................... -133.0
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps increase...... +1.22
Total............................................. -3,062.08

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $3,062.08 million. This
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $1,937.1 million to reflect
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment
annual MILPERS under execution; (2) A decrease of $993.2
million to reflect active and reserve component end strength
reductions from the President's Budget request; (3) A decrease
of $133.0 million for foreign currency fluctuation; and (4) An
increase of $1.22 million for Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Part I--Officer Personnel Management Reform

Modernizing officer personnel management in support of the National
Defense Strategy
The 2018 National Defense Strategy states correctly that
``the creativity and talent of the American warfighter is our
greatest enduring strength.'' Furthermore, the strategy calls
for a ``broad revision'' of talent management principles among
the armed services to increase the lethality and adaptability
of the force. The committee supports these priorities and
recommends several provisions to modernize officer personnel
management and bolster the effectiveness, recruitment, and
retention of the all-volunteer force.
Officer personnel management is a complex combination of
statute, regulation, culture, and tradition that determines how
military leaders are recruited, trained, retained, promoted,
assigned, and compensated. Despite its importance, a personnel
system is not an end unto itself. An effective officer
personnel system must achieve desired military outcomes, which
are based on a coherent defense strategy. When the personnel
system becomes out of alignment with the strategy, the system
must be revised. This is precisely the situation facing the
current officer personnel management system.
Officer careers are managed according to the tenets of the
38-year-old Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA)
(Public Law 96-513). DOPMA places strict limitations on
commissioned officer personnel management and requires all
military Services to manage their officer corps in the same
general manner within specific statutory constraints. DOPMA
limits the number of officers who may be allowed to serve in
mid-grade officer ranks, how an officer is appointed, when an
officer may be promoted, how promotion decisions will be made,
and when an officer should be removed from service.
Over the last several years, the committee has carefully
studied the legislation, policy, and practice governing officer
careers. The committee held public hearings on the topic in
2015, 2017, and 2018, where expert civilian and military
leaders urged reform. In 2017, committee staff visited each
military Service personnel headquarters to gain an in-depth
understanding of how DOPMA is implemented on a day-to-day
basis. The committee hosted multiple member and staff policy
meetings to thoroughly understand current policy and options
for reform, including recommendations from the Department of
Defense. Based on the committee's thorough research and
deliberate process, the committee recommends several provisions
to modernize DOPMA to properly orient the officer corps for the
threats identified by the National Defense Strategy.
DOPMA was based on the assumption that the Armed Forces
would primarily be required to defeat a single adversary,
namely the Soviet Union. It was drafted at a time when
lawmakers could not have foreseen the variety of challenges
facing today's military. In 1980, the primary military outcome
DOPMA was designed to achieve was building and maintaining a
perpetually young and vigorous force prepared for the large-
scale maneuver warfare tactics of the Cold War. To achieve this
outcome, DOPMA continued and strengthened an ``up-or-out''
promotion system as the fundamental concept for the management
of officer personnel. The committee report (H. Rpt. 96-1462)
accompanying the DOPMA legislation stated, ``The simple fact is
that if the system is working right, it will, of necessity,
result in passover for promotion of officers who are fully
qualified to serve in the next-higher grade.''
Today, strategy, tactics, and dramatically different
military demographics demand different outcomes from a
personnel system than what DOPMA was designed to achieve. The
2018 National Defense Strategy notes the United States faces
``a security environment more complex and volatile than any we
have experienced in recent memory.'' To respond to this
volatility, the strategy calls for a ``lethal, resilient, and
rapidly adapting Joint Force.'' Rapid adaptability, rather than
youth and vigor, is the primary outcome that must be achieved
by a modernized officer personnel system.
Adaptability in the context of officer personnel policy
means the ability to quickly recruit, promote, and retain the
officers required to respond to emerging threats. To achieve
this outcome, the committee recommends several provisions that
de-emphasize predetermined promotion timelines and rigid
constraints on officer manpower. Additionally, the committee
recommends expanding constructive credit authority to allow the
military to quickly recruit experienced personnel from the
civilian labor pool. These provisions modernize rather than
overturn the fundamental officer management principles that
have served the military well over the past many decades.
Force utilization and demographics must also be considered
carefully in designing effective personnel policy. The authors
of DOPMA never envisioned the post-Cold War military as
presently constructed and utilized. Today's force is 43 percent
smaller than the military of 1980 and is constantly engaged in
ways never predicted during the Cold War. Repeated overseas
combat deployments strain the more traditional warfighting
career fields, as new military domains require entirely
different officer skills.
Designing a personnel system capable of adapting to the
unique concerns of hundreds of different officer specialties
and career fields means moving away from a ``one-size-fits-
all'' construct for officer management. Those officers subject
to frequent overseas deployments may benefit from the
opportunity to opt out of competing for promotion to free up
time to pursue an unusual career opportunity. Officers in the
burgeoning cyber and information warfare career fields are very
likely to be best served by specially designed promotion and
management policies.
As the all-volunteer force has matured over the last forty
years, new policies have thoroughly changed the demographics of
the officer corps, with women and married servicemembers
comprising a much larger percentage of the military than in
1980. Over 11 percent of married officers are in a dual-
military marriage, which means those families must balance the
demands of two full-time military careers. These changes have
strengthened the officer corps but have never been seriously
considered as a factor when designing suitable officer
management policy.
To respond to these demographic realities, the committee
recommends a number of provisions to emphasize individual merit
and to provide opportunities for more individually-tailored
career paths. In today's competitive labor market, it is
crucial to balance military necessity with the ability of
servicemembers to have greater influence over their careers. In
the vast majority of circumstances both interests can be
achieved without sacrificing the unique concerns of a
servicemember or the legitimate demands of a military career.
Up-or-out remains an important foundation for officer
personnel management. Not every officer can or should be
retained for a full career. However, today the up-or-out
promotion system has largely been replaced with an unofficial
up-and-stay system. Though each military Service still
routinely separates officers who fail to promote to the rank of
major or lieutenant commander, the promotion rate to this rank
has steadily increased to the point where only a few officers
are not promoted. For example, in 2017, the Air Force announced
a 100 percent promotion opportunity to the rank of major, and
since 2001, the Army's average promotion rate to major has been
88 percent. Each Service generally allows officers who reach
major or lieutenant commander to remain on Active Duty until
reaching retirement eligibility. Additionally, each of the
Services often utilizes selective continuation authority to
retain the relatively few officers who fail to promote to major
or lieutenant commander.
The committee continues to believe that up-or-out is an
important principle for a large portion of the officer corps.
However, not every officer career field should be forced to
resemble a pyramid, with a large number of junior officers
ultimately feeding fewer mid-level officers and fewer still
senior ranking officers. Rather, some career fields would be
best served with a structure that provides for a relatively
small number of junior officers while supporting a larger
number of mid-level officers. DOPMA and other policies make
this a difficult outcome to achieve. The committee therefore
recommends provisions that would provide additional flexibility
to adjust the shape of the officer corps by discontinuing the
authorized officer strength table, which caps the number of
mid-level officers.
The committee emphasizes that these updates to officer
management are not motivated by the performance of currently-
serving officers. The officer corps continues to provide strong
and effective leadership for the all-volunteer force. However,
this committee believes that in many cases, the military
produces high-quality officers despite the current personnel
system rather than because of it. Moreover, the challenges
facing the military demand a modernized officer personnel
system to ensure the military can harness the talent of the
next generation of competent, agile leaders. Therefore, the
committee recommends a series of proposals that would provide
necessary updates to officer management while also protecting
the fundamental requirements of a military career.
Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths of certain
commissioned officers on active duty (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 523 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Congress to annually authorize the number of officers serving
in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the
Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps or lieutenant commander,
commander, and captain in the Navy. This provision would repeal
the authorized officer strength table, including all of the
previous exceptions to the officer strength table.
The committee notes the officer strength table was
originally included as a fundamental feature of the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) (Public Law 96-513).
The strength table was designed to serve as an effective
limitation on the number of mid-grade officers within each
service. The House report to accompany the legislation (H.
Rept. 96-1462) explained that the table would be adjusted over
time to align with emerging officer manpower requirements.
However, in practice the authorized strength table has rarely
been updated and is no longer linked to strategy or actual
officer requirements.
As of the end of fiscal year 2017, each service is largely
unaffected by the limitations imposed by the strength table.
For example, the Army finished fiscal year 2017 at
approximately 78 percent of their authorization for officers
serving in the grade of major. Majors in the Air Force and
Marine Corps were respectively at 88 percent and 86 percent of
authorized levels. While each service operates more closely to
the strength table limit for progressively higher grades (e.g.,
the Air Force was manned at approximately 96 percent of
authorized lieutenant colonel end strength), none of the
services are effectively limited by the table as envisioned by
the original DOPMA legislation.
The committee authorizes annual end strength levels for the
overall active and reserve component and numerous other subsets
of total force manpower. This allows end strength to fluctuate
to meet strategic and budgetary necessities. Similarly, this
provision would require each military service to annually
justify required mid-grade officer manpower needs to support an
annual authorization from Congress. This provision provides
greater flexibility to the military, while also ensuring
Congress continues to perform its vital oversight role in
ensuring the officer corps is effectively managed.
Annual defense manpower requirements report matters (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 115a of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report be submitted on the
same day as the date on which the President submits the budget
request for the next fiscal year to Congress.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to include two new elements in the Annual Defense Manpower
Requirements Report. These new elements are: (1) The
anticipated promotion opportunity for officer promotion boards
expected to occur during the upcoming fiscal year; and (2) The
number of officers required to serve during the upcoming fiscal
year in the rank of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel for
the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and lieutenant commander,
commander, and captain for the Navy.
The Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report is a
crucial tool for effective congressional oversight of military
personnel. The report requirement was the result of fundamental
concern when drafting the Defense Officer Personnel Management
Act (DOPMA) (Public Law 96-516). As the committee stated in the
House report accompanying the legislation (H. Rept. 96-1462)
``Although the committee is generally satisfied with the
assessment of grade requirements, significant uncertainty
exists in justifying the need for some of these requirements.''
The Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report was designed to
provide coherent justification of manpower needs to the
Congress.
The committee notes with disapproval that the Department of
Defense has habitually disregarded the statutory deadline for
the Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report. In fiscal year
2018, the Department submitted the report over six months late.
The fiscal year 2019 report is expected to be submitted nearly
three months late. The Department's disregard for a long-
standing legal requirement inhibits Congress's ability to
provide effective oversight of the military's most valuable
resource, which is the people who volunteer to serve.
Repeal of requirement for ability to complete 20 years of service by
age 62 as qualification for original appointment as a regular
commissioned officer (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 532 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement that original officer appointments may only be
granted to individuals who are able to complete 20 years of
commissioned service prior to reaching age 62.
Enhancement of availability of constructive service credit for private
sector training or experience upon original appointment as a
commissioned officer (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 533 and 12207 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize service secretaries to award constructive credit to
newly-appointed active and reserve component officers for
special training or experience not to exceed the amount of
constructive credit required for appointment in the grade of
colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps or captain in
the Navy. This provision would also repeal the temporary
authority to award constructive credit for critically necessary
cyberspace-related experience.
The committee notes that this provision explicitly
authorizes service secretaries to award constructive credit for
any special experience, to include cyberspace-related
experience, directly supportive the operational needs of each
service. This provision is intended to allow the military
departments to recruit individuals more easily from the private
sector with relevant knowledge that may be in short supply
within a given service. However, a manpower shortage is not the
only reason to utilize expanded constructive credit authority.
This provision may also be used to increase the diversity of
experience within the officer corps, particularly in career
fields that closely resemble occupations outside of the
military (e.g., program management, financial management,
prosecutors, etc.).
Traditionally, officer personnel management resembles the
structure of a pyramid, with large numbers of junior officers
required to fill smaller numbers of mid-grade and senior
officer requirements. This may no longer be the ideal construct
for all officer career fields. The committee envisions some
career fields requiring relatively few junior officers, while
still requiring larger numbers of mid-grade and senior
officers. This provision would allow the Services to recruit
those mid-grade and senior officers from the civilian labor
pool by offering the incentives of a higher initial rank along
with a more competitive compensation package.
The committee notes the Army already structures some
officer specialties with more senior-ranking than junior-
ranking officers through its Voluntary Branch Transfer
Incentive Program. This program allows lieutenants, captains,
and majors to transfer out of occupational specialties with
fewer mid-grade officer requirements (e.g., infantry) into
other occupational specialties that require more senior
officers (e.g., financial management). While the Army's program
is a useful retention tool, in some cases it may be more
effective to recruit individuals with private-sector experience
to fill these mid-grade officer ranks.
This provision encourages the sort of rapid adaptability
envisioned by the National Defense Strategy. By allowing the
Services to recruit talented Americans at later stages of a
career, the military can quickly build and shape new units to
respond to emerging threats.
Standardized temporary promotion authority across the military
departments for officers in certain grades with critical skills
(sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 35 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new
section to authorize each military service to award temporary
promotions to the grade of O-4, O-5, and O-6 for officers
serving in specified positions. This provision would also
repeal a similar authority, which was previously only
applicable to the Navy.
The temporary promotion authority that would be provided by
this provision must be utilized to fill positions requiring
certain critical skills. This authority is designed to help the
Services fill the gap between operationally challenging billets
and the officers who are available to fill those assignments.
Additionally, this authority would offer a valuable retention
tool by incentivizing certain high-performing officers in low-
density career fields to volunteer for challenging assignments
with the promise of an earlier promotion.
The committee notes a similar authority has existed in the
Navy for decades. The Navy has utilized ``temporary spot
promotions'' to fill critical lieutenant commander billets in
the nuclear engineering and special warfare communities. This
provision would allow the other services to utilize similar
authority as currently provided to the Navy and also expand the
program to temporarily promote officers to the rank of captain,
lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the Army, Air Force, or
Marine Corps or lieutenant, commander, and captain in the Navy.
While the temporary promotions authorized by this provision
are designed to occur earlier in an officer's career than would
normally be the case, the committee notes that this provision
also requires a promotion board to select an officer for a
temporary promotion, thereby providing an effective control
measure to ensure only high-performing and skilled officers are
selected for these prestigious appointments.
As the committee continues to look for opportunities to
provide flexibility within the officer management system, this
provision is an important tool to allow service secretaries to
shape their officer corps to respond to rapid changes in
officer requirements. Temporary spot promotions could be used
to fill vacancies in numerous officer career fields where the
demand for mid-grade officers frequently exceeds the available
supply. For example, the Air Force currently has mid-grade
officer shortages in logistics and information operations, the
Army continues to seek mid-grade officers for information
warfare and other technical specialties, the Navy would be able
to expand its existing program for higher-level assignments in
nuclear and special warfare, and the Marine Corps could utilize
this authority to fill shortages in technically-oriented career
fields like financial and program management. While these are
examples meant to illustrate the utility of temporary spot
promotion authority, the committee looks toward the military
departments to develop creative uses for this authority.

Authority for promotion boards to recommend officers of particular
merit be placed higher on a promotion list (sec. 506)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 616 and section 14108 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize service secretaries to allow officer promotion
selection boards to place officers of particular merit higher
on a regular or reserve promotion list.
In recommending this provision, the committee emphasizes
that officer performance should be the most important factor in
promotion determinations. This provision would allow high-
performing officers to be promoted earlier than others, to
include those officers who meet the promotion board after
having already been passed over in a previous board. A similar
authority has been used extensively by the U.S. Coast Guard for
the last 16 years with great success.
The committee encourages service secretaries to take
advantage of this authority wherever possible. Recognizing
high-performing officers through earlier promotions would
improve the military's ability to continue building an officer
corps based on merit, character, and performance.

Authority for officers to opt out of promotion board consideration
(sec. 507)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 619 and section 14301 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize service secretaries, based on the request of an
officer and only when deemed to be in the best interests of the
military departments, to remove an officer from consideration
by a selection board for promotion to the next higher grade.

Competitive category matters (sec. 508)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 621 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
service secretaries establish competitive categories by
grouping officers occupying similar qualifications,
specialties, occupations, or ratings. The provision would also
prohibit the practice of requiring service secretaries to
provide consistent promotion timing or promotion opportunity
among various competitive categories in each military Service.
Under current law, service secretaries have broad authority
to establish competitive categories for the purposes of officer
promotion and management. As a result, each military Service
has pursued a different approach, with the Navy utilizing 20
different competitive categories, while the Marine Corps groups
all of its officers into 2 competitive categories. Though the
committee does not desire to mandate a specific number of
competitive categories for each Service, in general, the
committee believes service secretaries should make greater use
of competitive category authority.
The committee notes that within a given competitive
category, service secretaries may tailor promotion timing,
increase or decrease desired promotion opportunity, and
customize guidance to promotion boards. These are important
tools in managing the wide variety of officer careers in
today's military. Furthermore, as today's force grows
increasingly specialized and technical, competitive categories
must be built to achieve specific career outcomes for
individual officer career fields.
Lastly, the committee is aware of Department of Defense
instructions encouraging the Services to strive for consistent
promotion timing and opportunity among various competitive
categories. At a time when officer careers can be radically
different, it makes little sense to strive for consistency of
career outcomes. Officer career fields must be allowed to be
customized based on the unique demands of a given specialty.

Promotion zone matters (sec. 509)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 623 of title 10, United States Code, to require service
secretaries to align officer promotion zones with desired
officer management outcomes described in the Annual Defense
Manpower Requirements Report. The provision would also prohibit
service secretaries from determining the number of officers in
a promotion zone on the basis of the year in which officers
receive their original appointment to their current grade, a
practice commonly referred as ``year group management.''
During the committee's review of officer personnel
management policy, it was discovered that some military
departments structure officer promotion zones according to year
group while other departments form promotion zones to achieve a
certain promotion rate or opportunity. While the year group
methodology allows for increased predictability for officer
promotion timing, it frequently results in larger
inefficiencies and a lack of predictability in the actual
likelihood of an officer being promoted. For example, when an
individual year group is small, promotion rates increase beyond
what might be advisable. Alternatively, when an individual year
group is large, promotion rates drop precipitously, thereby
unfairly punishing some officers who might otherwise have been
promoted if they had been commissioned a year earlier or later.
This provision would require service secretaries to form
promotion zones to achieve more consistent promotion rates that
are aligned with the needs of the service, rather than
consistent promotion timing.

Alternative promotion authority for officers in designated competitive
categories of officers (sec. 510)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an alternative promotion process for officers in certain,
service secretary-designated, competitive categories. This
provision would also create a term-based selective continuation
process for officers not selected for promotion.
Under the authorities provided by this provision, officers
serving in designated competitive categories would have up to
five opportunities to be selected for promotion to the next
highest grade. The provision would remove below-the-zone and
above-the-zone distinctions within the promotion process,
thereby allowing all eligible officers to compete for promotion
purely on the basis of performance with limited regard for
cumulative time served.
In directing a competitive category to make use of the
promotion process described in this provision, service
secretaries must determine the number of promotion
opportunities to be offered to each grade within the
competitive category. For example, a service secretary may
determine it is desirable to offer five opportunities to
compete for promotion to major, while promotion to lieutenant
colonel should require only three opportunities. Service
secretaries may only make adjustments to the number of
promotion opportunities once every 5 years. If the number of
promotion opportunities is adjusted downward (e.g., from five
to four opportunities), all officers with remaining promotion
eligibility under the previous policy would have one more
opportunity to compete for promotion.
For many officers the Defense Officer Personnel Management
Act (DOPMA) (Public Law 96-513) officer promotion system
functions adequately. However, for some officers, DOPMA is
unnecessarily constraining and does not achieve desired
personnel outcomes. The alternative promotion authority
included in this provision is intended to remove some of the
most restrictive constraints, while preserving the underlying
strengths of the officer promotion process.
The committee also notes that one of the weaknesses of
DOPMA is its excessive reliance on tenure as the primary
determining factor in officer promotions. Additionally, the law
effectively prejudices any officer who competes for promotion
outside of the specified promotion zone. For example, early
promotions known as ``below-the-zone'' are routinely in the low
single-digit percentages even though the law allows for up to
10 percent of promotions for below-the-zone officers. While
officers previously not selected for promotion remain eligible,
they are effectively stigmatized by promotion boards because a
previous board did not select them. Consequently, promotion
boards frequently and artificially limit their ability to
select the most talented officers eligible for promotion so as
to not harm those officers who are currently ``in the promotion
zone.'' This effectively limits the promotion board's ability
to select the most talented officers, regardless of tenure, and
also limits individual officer career flexibility.
The requirement to compete for promotion according to
predetermined timelines places an enormous amount of stress on
officer careers. While the Services determine necessary career
milestones for continued promotion, under DOPMA the Services
have a limited ability to adjust when an officer must compete
for promotion. As new requirements are levied on officer
careers (e.g., joint assignments, advanced education,
deployments, etc.) officers are forced to change assignments
much more frequently than might be advisable in order to
complete all required milestones prior to competing for
promotion. Promotion timelines mandated by DOPMA and other
supporting policies reinforce an officer personnel management
system that prioritizes breadth of experience rather than depth
of experience.
No matter the process or policy, some officers will not be
selected for promotion. The committee believes it is important
to retain the up-or-out concept for officer management, but
there must be some exceptions when the needs of the military
will be best served by retaining an officer. The current
selective continuation process is too imprecise to ensure only
those officers who are most able to contribute to a unit's
success are retained. The Services routinely continue nearly
all officers not selected for promotion, effectively
disregarding the ``selective'' aspect of the continuation
process. This provision would institute a term-based officer
continuation process to allow officers not selected for
promotion to continue serving only if they are able to
contribute to a specific mission or assignment.
Term-based selective continuation would allow officers to
continue serving for renewable 3-year terms in specific
predetermined assignments. As personnel management technology
continues to advance, the committee envisions assignments for
selectively continued officers will be individually matched on
the basis of an officer's unique knowledge, skills, and
behavior.
To ensure the successful implementation of the alternative
promotion and continuation process contained in this provision,
the Secretary of Defense is required 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 the
enactment of this Act with his assessment of the effect of this
provision on officer personnel. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to work with the military departments in
drafting the required report.
Over the last several years, each military department has
acknowledged a heightened competition for talent. Competition
breeds innovation, which will be required to ensure the future
officer corps is an attractive and effective profession. While
the authorities contained in this provision are entirely
permissive, the committee encourages the military departments
to experiment with the alternative promotion process by
crafting novel competitive categories of officers who would be
best served by a more flexible promotion policy.

Applicability to additional officer grades of authority for
continuation on active duty of officers in certain military
specialties and career tracks (sec. 511)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 637a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to allow officers in the grade of O-2 or
above serving in certain specified military specialties to
remain on Active Duty until reaching 40 years of active
service.
The committee intends this provision be used to allow the
military to retain officers with vital knowledge, skills, and
experience who may not be interested in or competitive for
further promotion. This authority could be utilized in
conjunction with other policies to build viable ``technical
tracks'' for certain officer careers, which each military
department has expressed an interest in pursuing. These
technical tracks would generally be constructed to allow junior
officers to remain in selected positions for an extended period
of time to build greater depth of technical experience than
ordinarily permitted by law or policy. Officers serving in
aviation, cyber, maintenance, and special forces are examples
where a technical track may be an effective personnel
management option.
While there will likely be few junior officers who remain
on Active Duty for 40 years, the committee recognizes that it
is sometimes counterproductive to force officers to separate or
retire at an arbitrary point in time. The manpower needs of
each military service should be the primary concern in
determining when an officer's career should be involuntarily
ended.

Part II--Other Matters

Matters relating to satisfactory service in grade for purposes of
retirement grade of officers in highest grade of satisfactory
service (sec. 516)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) Authorize
a conditional determination of an officer's retired grade when
the officer is under investigation for alleged misconduct at
the time of retirement; (2) Authorize reopening of a
determination or certification of an officer's retired grade
under specified conditions; and (3) Provide that determinations
of satisfactory service in grade for purposes of determining an
officer's retired grade take into account the officer's service
throughout a military career.
The committee recommends this provision authorizing
conditional retirement of an officer who is under investigation
in light of the fact that an officer remains subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice in retired status and thus can
still be held accountable for misconduct occurring prior to the
officer's retirement.

Reduction in number of years of active naval service required for
permanent appointment as a limited duty officer (sec. 517)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5589(d) of title 10, United States Code, to offer
permanent appointments to limited duty officers who have
completed at least 8 years of active naval service.

Repeal of original appointment qualification requirement for warrant
officers in the regular Army (sec. 518)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 3310 of title 10, United States Code, which requires
original Regular Army warrant officer appointment be made from
persons who have served at least 1 year on Active Duty in the
Army.

Uniform grade of service of the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Armed Forces
(sec. 519)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to specify a common grade across the
military services for the positions of Chief of Chaplains.

Written justification for appointment of Chiefs of Chaplains in grade
below grade of major general or rear admiral (sec. 520)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that provides written justification in the event an individual
holding a rank below major general or rear admiral is appointed
to the position of Service Chief of Chaplains.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Authority to adjust effective date of promotion in the event of undue
delay in extending Federal recognition of promotion (sec. 521)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 14308(f) of title 10, United States Code, to allow
service secretaries to adjust the effective date of promotion
for officers in the reserve component if the secretary
concerned determines there was an undue delay in the federal
recognition process and the delay is not attributable to the
action, or inaction, of the officer concerned.

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
service secretaries to defer promotion consideration for
reserve component servicemembers in a non-participatory,
membership-only status.
Current law requires all servicemembers identified on the
Reserve Active Status List (RASL) to be considered for
promotion to the next higher grade. This includes certain
categories of reservists on the RASL who are in the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR) and the Standby Reserve, who remain
eligible for promotion consideration but are not actively
participating.
Most officers upon release from the active component are
transferred to the IRR without affiliating with a reserve unit
that allows for participation. In some instances, these trained
individuals have chosen to temporarily suspend their military
career and voluntarily transferred to the IRR for a variety of
reasons; others may have secured a civilian opportunity
requiring transfer to the Standby Reserve where they are
ineligible for participation.
After deciding to resume their active service, some
servicemembers learn of their ineligibility due to being twice
deferred for promotion, during their time in a non-
participatory reserve status. Others, who received their first
deferment while in the IRR, potentially lack sufficient time
upon returning to participation status--due to timing prior to
their next promotion consideration--to demonstrate the
potential to serve in the next higher grade and thus are
discharged upon receipt of their second deferral for promotion,
in accordance with current law. This serves as an obstacle to
achieving permeability between the active and reserve component
by reducing opportunities to re-affiliate trained and
experienced servicemembers should they seek to return to active
status.

Expansion of personnel subject to authority of the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau in the execution of functions and
missions of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 523)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 10508 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
authority of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to employ
persons under certain provisions of title 5, United States
Code, in furtherance of meeting the requirements of section
1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), as amended by section 1084 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) and section 1083 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).

Repeal of prohibition on service on Army Reserve Forces Policy
Committee by members on active duty (sec. 524)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 10302 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the
Army National Guard of the United States and United States Army
Reserve officers serving on Active Duty to serve on the Army
Reserve Forces Policy Committee.

Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Assessment of Navy standard workweek and related adjustments (sec. 531)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
the Navy standard workweek and make related adjustments to how
workload is used in shipboard manpower planning.
The committee notes the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report on May 18, 2017, titled ``Actions
Needed to Ensure Proper Size and Composition of Ship Crews''
(GAO-17-413), which recommended ``the Navy (1) Reassess the
standard workweek, (2) Require examination of in-port workload,
(3) Require reassessment of the factors used to develop
manpower requirements, and (4) Identify the personnel costs
needed to man a larger fleet.''
The committee further notes this GAO report states, ``In
2014, the Navy conducted a study of the standard workweek and
identified significant issues that could negatively affect a
crew's capabilities to accomplish tasks and maintain the
material readiness of ships, as well as crew safety issues that
might result if crews sleep less to accommodate unaccounted for
workload. The Navy study found that sailors were on duty 108
hours a week, exceeding their weekly on-duty allocation of 81
hours.''

Manning of Forward Deployed Naval Forces (sec. 532)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to maintain manning of ships assigned to
the Forward Deployed Naval Forces at levels not less than the
levels established for each ship class.

Navy watchstander records (sec. 533)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to require key watchstanders on Navy
surface ships to maintain a career record of watchstanding
hours and specific operational evolutions.

Qualification experience requirements for certain Navy watchstations
(sec. 534)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the adequacy of individual training for
certain Navy watchstations, including any planned or
recommended changes in qualification standards.

Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or requests for
review of discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces (sec.
535)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 15-
year statute of limitations on filing claims for review of a
discharge or dismissal by service discharge review boards.

Treatment of claims relating to military sexual trauma in correction of
military records and review of discharge or dismissal
proceedings (sec. 536)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1552 and 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify the treatment of claims for review of a discharge or
dismissal relating to military sexual trauma in correction of
military records and review of discharge or dismissal
proceedings.

Subtitle D--Military Justice Matters

Punitive article on domestic violence under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 541)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to
establish a new punitive article on domestic violence in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Inclusion of strangulation and suffocation in conduct constituting
aggravated assault for purposes of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (sec. 542)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 928 of title 10, United States Code (article 128 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), to include strangulation and
suffocation in conduct constituting aggravated assault for
purposes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Authorities of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,
Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
(sec. 543)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to authorize the Defense Advisory Committee on
Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in
the Armed Forces (Advisory Committee) to hold hearings and to
require other Federal agencies to provide information requested
by the Advisory Committee. These authorities are similar to
authorities provided to the prior congressionally-mandated,
sexual assault-related Response Systems Panel and Judicial
Proceedings Panel.

Protective orders against individuals subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 544)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
military judges and military magistrates to issue military
protective orders.

Expansion of eligibility for Special Victims' Counsel services (sec.
545)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to expand
eligibility for Special Victims' Counsel services to victims of
domestic violence and other aggravated violent offenses.

Clarification of expiration of term of appellate military judges of the
United States Court of Military Commission Review (sec. 546)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 950f of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
expiration of the term of an appellate military judge of the
United States Court of Military Commission Review.

Expansion of policies on expedited transfer of members of the Armed
Forces who are victims of sexual assault (sec. 547)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to expand eligibility for expedited
transfer to servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault
and physical domestic violence.

Uniform command action form on disposition of unrestricted sexual
assault cases involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 548)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform command action
form, applicable across the Armed Forces, for reporting the
final disposition of certain sexual assault cases.

Inclusion of information on certain collateral conduct of victims of
sexual assault in annual reports on sexual assault involving
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 549)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
inclusion of information on certain collateral misconduct of
victims of sexual assault in annual reports on sexual assault
involving members of the Armed Forces.

Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, Transition, and Resilience

Consecutive service of service obligation in connection with payment of
tuition for off-duty training or education for commissioned
officers of the Armed Forces with any other service obligations
(sec. 551)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2007(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require an
Active-Duty service obligation incurred by an officer for the
acceptance of tuition assistance for off-duty training or
education be served sequentially with any other service
obligation already incurred by the officer.

Consecutive service of active service obligations for medical training
with other service obligations for education or training (sec.
552)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2114(d) and 2123(b) of title 10, United States Code,
to require that commissioned service obligations incurred as a
result of participation in a military intern, residency, or
fellowship training program shall be served consecutively with
other commissioned service obligations incurred for education
or training. This provision would apply to individuals
beginning participation in medical training programs on or
after January 1, 2020.

Clarification of application and honorable service requirements under
the Troops-to-Teachers Program to members of the Retired
Reserve (sec. 553)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1154(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to
require that members transferred to the Retired Reserve who
wish to submit applications to participate in the Troops-to-
Teachers program must do so not later than 3 years after the
date of the transfer. This provision would apply the same
application submission requirement to members transferred to
the Retired Reserve in the same way the requirement currently
applies to eligible members who are retired, separated, or
released from Active Duty.

Prohibition on use of funds for attendance of enlisted personnel at
senior level and intermediate level officer professional
military education courses (sec. 554)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense for the purpose of the attendance of
enlisted personnel at senior level and intermediate level
officer professional military education courses. The provision
would also repeal section 547 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).

Repeal of program on encouragement of postseparation public and
community service (sec. 555)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1143a of title 10, United States Code, to strike all
references to the Department of Defense's program to encourage
members and former members of the Armed Forces to enter into
public and community service jobs after discharge or release
from Active Duty.
The committee is aware that the only servicemembers to use
the program were those members with less than 20 years of
Active-Duty service who retired between October 23, 1992, and
September 1, 2002. Furthermore, the committee believes that
through the Transition Assistance Program, the Department of
Defense and its interagency partners continue to fulfill the
original intent and responsibility of this program.

Expansion of authority to assist members in obtaining professional
credentials (sec. 556)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security
to enable members of the Armed Forces to obtain professional
credentials that do not relate to military training if the
Secretary concerned determines it is in the best interests of
the United States.

Enhancement of authorities in connection with Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps programs (sec. 557)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 102 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the
Secretary of Defense to offer to convert closing Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) detachments into National
Defense Cadet Corps organizations. This provision would also
provide flexibility to service secretaries in setting JROTC
instructor hiring and compensation policy. Additionally, the
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to standardize
JROTC detachment data collection methods and policy across the
military departments.

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

Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$40.0 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. 562)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a)
using the formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398), for continuation of Department of Defense
assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible
dependents with severe disabilities. Subsection (b) of the
provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use $5.0
million of the total amount authorized for payments to local
educational agencies with higher concentrations of military
children with severe disabilities at the Secretary's discretion
and without regard to the formula set forth in section 363 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398).

Department of Defense Education Activity policies and procedures on
sexual harassment of students of Activity schools (sec. 563)

The committee recommends a provision that would equally
apply the provisions contained in title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), with respect to
education programs and activities receiving Federal financial
assistance, to the education programs and activities
administered by the Department of Defense Education Activity
(DODEA). The provision would require DODEA to establish
policies and procedures, not later than March 31, 2019, to
protect students at DODEA schools who are victims of sexual
harassment.
The committee understands that student victims of sexual
harassment in DODEA schools do not have the same rights and
protections as those available to students attending U.S.
public schools. The committee believes that DODEA's current
policies and procedures for response to sexual harassment cases
fail to respect the rights of victims and lead to inadequate
and insufficient responses to complaints of sexual harassment
in its schools.

Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters

Improvement of authority to conduct family support programs for
immediate family members of the Armed Forces assigned to
special operations forces (sec. 566)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1788a of title 10, United States Code, pertaining to
the authority for the Commander, U.S. Special Operations
Command to conduct support programs for immediate family
members of members of the Armed Forces assigned to special
operations forces. The modification is intended to clarify the
types of support services that are authorized under this
program. The committee notes that when this program was
codified by section 555 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), the intent was
that the types of support activities provided previously under
the pilot program were to continue under the permanent
authority.

Expansion of period of availability of Military OneSource program for
retired and discharged members of the Armed Forces and their
immediate families (sec. 567)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to extend
eligibility for the Military OneSource program of the
Department of Defense of an eligible individual retired,
discharged, or otherwise released from the Armed Forces and
their eligible family members to the 1-year period beginning on
the date of retirement, discharge, or release of the
individual.

Expansion of authority for noncompetitive appointments of military
spouses by Federal agencies (sec. 568)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3330d of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the
head of a Federal agency to appoint non-competitively either a
spouse of a member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty or a
spouse of a disabled or deceased member of the Armed Forces.

Improvement of My Career Advancement Account program for military
spouses (sec. 569)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to take appropriate actions to ensure that
military spouses eligible for participation in the My Career
Advancement Account (MyCAA) program are made aware of the
program. The provision 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 within
180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, providing
recommendations regarding mechanisms: (1) To increase awareness
of the program among eligible military spouses; and (2) To
increase participation in the program. Additionally, the
provision would require the service secretaries to take actions
to ensure career counselors at military installations receive
appropriate training and current information on eligibility and
benefits utilization under the MyCAA program, including
financial assistance for the costs associated with portability
of occupational licenses, professional credentials exams, and
professional re-certification.

Access to military installations for certain surviving spouses and
other next of kin of members of the Armed Forces who die while
on active duty or certain reserve duty (sec. 570)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting jointly with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to establish procedures whereby an eligible
surviving spouse and certain other next of kin of members of
the Armed Forces may obtain access without escort, as
appropriate, to military installations to receive benefits to
which they may be entitled by law or policy. This provision
would require establishment of such procedures not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council matters (sec.
571)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of subsection (b) of section 1781a of
title 10, United States Code, to: (1) Authorize a change in
membership of the Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); and
(2) Change the term of service from 3 years to 2 years for
military family organizations serving on the MFRC. The
provision would also amend subsection (d), paragraph 2, of such
section to require the MFRC to review and make recommendations
to the Secretary of Defense to improve collaboration,
awareness, and promotion of accurate and timely military family
readiness information and support services by policy makers,
service providers, and targeted beneficiaries. Finally, the
provision would amend subsection (e) of such section to change
the submission date for the MFRC's annual report from February
1 to July 1 of each year.

Multidisciplinary teams for military installations on child abuse and
other domestic violence (sec. 572)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service secretaries to establish and maintain multidisciplinary
teams on child abuse and other domestic violence at military
installations to: (1) Share information among teams and other
appropriate personnel regarding the progress of investigations
and the resolution of incidents of child abuse and other
domestic violence involving members of the Armed Forces
stationed at or assigned to installations; (2) Provide for and
enhance collaborative efforts among teams and other appropriate
personnel of the installations regarding investigations into
and resolution of incidents; (3) Enhance the social services
available to military families at the installations in
connection with incidents, including through the enhancement of
cooperation among specialists and other personnel providing
services to military families in connection with incidents; and
(4) Conduct other duties regarding the response to child abuse
and other domestic violence at the installations as the
Secretary concerned considers appropriate. The provision would
prescribe the composition, expertise and training, and ongoing
responsibilities (including coordination and collaboration with
non-military services or resources on child abuse or other
domestic violence) of teams. Additionally, the provision would
require each Secretary concerned to submit a report to
Congress, not later than March 1, each year through 2022, on
the activities of multidisciplinary teams under their
jurisdiction during the preceding year.

Provisional or interim clearances to provide childcare services at
military childcare centers (sec. 573)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to implement a policy to permit the
issuance of clearances, on a provisional or interim basis, for
the provision of supervised childcare services by personnel at
military childcare centers. This provision would provide that
any clearance issued under the policy shall be temporary and
contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements for
issuance of a clearance on a permanent basis. The committee
believes this provision would help shorten the hiring process
and improve the availability of childcare services at military
childcare centers, thereby enhancing military family readiness.

Pilot program on prevention of child abuse and training on safe
childcare practices among military families (sec. 574)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Health Agency,
to conduct a pilot program at military installations to assess
the feasibility and advisability of universal home visits to
provide eligible covered beneficiaries and their families
training on safe childcare practices aimed at: (1) Reducing
child abuse and fatalities due to abuse and neglect; (2)
Assessing risk factors for child abuse; and (3) Connecting
families with community resources to meet identified needs.
The provision would prescribe the scope and elements of the
pilot program, including the requirement for home visits of
eligible beneficiaries by a team led by a nurse, whenever
practicable. The Secretary would be required to inform all
eligible beneficiaries of the program and participation in the
program would be at the election of the beneficiary. In
conducting the pilot program, the Secretary would carry out not
fewer than five implementation assessments to assess the
feasibility of the elements and requirements of the program.
These assessments would occur at not less than 5 military
installations and conclude not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
The Secretary would submit an initial report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, which describes how the Department would
carry out the program. The Department would then submit a final
report to the same committees not later than 180 days after
completion of the pilot program. Finally, the provision would
require the Secretary to implement the pilot program at all
military installations if he determines that any element of the
program is effective.

Pilot program on participation of military spouses in Transition
Assistance Program activities (sec. 575)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, at not fewer
than five military installations, to assess the feasibility and
advisability of permitting military spouses to participate in
activities under the Transition Assistance Program. The
Secretary would carry out the pilot program during the 5-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. The
provision would require the Secretary to submit an initial
report describing the pilot program to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within
6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. In
addition, the Secretary would submit a final report to the same
committees within 6 months after completion of the pilot
program.

Small business activities of military spouses on military installations
in the United States (sec. 576)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress providing
an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of permitting
military spouses to engage in small business activities on
military installations in the United States in partnership with
commissaries, exchange stores, and other morale, welfare, and
recreation facilities of the Armed Forces.

Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross for Justin
T. Gallegos for acts of valor during Operation Enduring Freedom
(sec. 581)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service
Cross to Staff Sergeant Justin T. Gallegos for acts of valor
while serving in Afghanistan on October 3, 2009.

Award of medals or other commendations to handlers of military working
dogs (sec. 582)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of each military department to establish a program
for awarding one or more medals or other commendations to
handlers of military working dogs.

Subtitle H--Other Matters

Authority to award damaged personal protective equipment to members
separating from the Armed Forces and veterans as mementos of
military service (sec. 591)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
Secretary of a military department to award personal protective
equipment of the member or veteran that was damaged during
deployment to veterans or members separating from the Armed
Forces.

Standardization of frequency of academy visits of the Air Force Academy
Board of Visitors with academy visits of boards of other
military service academies (sec. 592)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9355 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors to visit the
Air Force Academy at least annually. This provision would align
United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitor meeting
requirements with other military service academies.
The committee notes that the United States Naval Academy
and the United States Military Academy Boards of Visitors
annually convene at least three in-person meetings, with two
such meetings occurring on the grounds of the respective
academy. In standardizing Board of Visitor meeting requirements
throughout the military service academies, the committee
expects the Air Force Academy to align its Board of Visitor
policy to the practices of the other military service
academies.

Redesignation of the Commandant of the United States Air Force
Institute of Technology as President of the United States Air
Force Institute of Technology (sec. 593)

The committee recommends a provision that would re-
designate the Commandant of the United States Air Force
Institute of Technology as the President of the United States
Air Force Institute of Technology.

Limitation on justifications entered by military recruiters for
enlistment or accession of individuals into the Armed Forces
(sec. 594)

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
military recruiters from changing the reasons for an individual
entering into the Armed Forces to anything other than that
individual's stated reason. The committee remains concerned
that marketing and advertising metrics related to recruiting
efforts continue to lack the ability to demonstrate the
effective use of resources.

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service matters
(sec. 595)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 551 and 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to revise certain
definitions and procedural requirements related to the National
Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.

Burial of unclaimed remains of inmates at the United States
Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (sec.
596)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 985 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
burial at the United States Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, of the remains of military prisoners
unclaimed by a person authorized to direct disposition of the
remains or by other persons legally authorized to dispose of
the remains.

Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft for veterans
with service-connected disabilities rated as total (sec. 597)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2641b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
veterans with a permanent service-connected total disability
rating to travel on military aircraft on a space-available
basis. The committee notes that this provision would also
ensure the primary purpose of space-available travel remains
transporting servicemembers and their dependents.

Items of Special Interest

Administrative separation protections for members of the Armed Forces

The committee supports the existing protections against
wrongful discharges enshrined in Department of Defense
Instruction 1332.14. This directive states, ``Separation for
personality disorder, or other mental disorder not constituting
a physical disability, is not appropriate nor should it be
pursued when separation is warranted on the basis of
unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. In such
circumstances, the enlisted Service member should not be
separated under this paragraph regardless of the existence of a
personality disorder.'' The committee acknowledges that non-
disability mental health discharges against combat veterans
have dropped significantly since these requirements were put in
place. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
apply these same standards of protection for all separations.

Assessment of Department of Defense Education Activity's policies and
procedures on student misconduct

The committee remains deeply concerned about recent media
articles, published by the Associated Press, which indicate
that the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) and
the Services fail to ``protect or provide justice to the
children of servicemembers when they are sexually assaulted by
other children'' in Department of Defense (DOD) schools and on
military bases. It is disturbing to learn that the DOD's
policies and procedures may prevent efforts to help child
victims of misconduct, including sexual harassment and sexual
assault, and to rehabilitate and hold child offenders
accountable.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
DOD's and DODEA's policies and procedures regarding misconduct,
including sexual misconduct, to help child victims of
misconduct and to rehabilitate child offenders, including
whether the Department took corrective actions to hold
offenders accountable when appropriate. This assessment shall
examine the authority of DODEA officials and military
commanders to hold offenders accountable for criminal acts and
include a review of services available to military families to
address the mental health and other needs of victims of
misconduct. The assessment shall also evaluate the adequacy of
DODEA's policies to address allegations of serious misconduct
occurring in areas and programs that fall within DODEA's area
of responsibility, including reporting requirements, and
referrals to criminal investigators as well as military and
civilian child services. The Inspector General shall provide
the report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives not later than December 1,
2018.

Assessment of relocation of family members

The committee shares the Department of Defense's commitment
to supporting servicemembers and their families whenever they
are experiencing a crisis, to include incidents of sexual
assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The committee notes
that family members are often located away from their primary
support systems, which may make it more difficult to handle
these painful situations, heal, and in some circumstances
participate in criminal adjudications.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to assess whether current statutory and regulatory authorities
authorize servicemembers and their families to relocate in an
efficient and effective manner. The assessment should examine
the ability of the Department to expand current policies in
order to allow for family members (whether abused by a
servicemember with a familial relationship or not) to relocate
to a location of their choosing in an expedited manner at
government expense, similar to the expedited transfer policy
for active duty servicemembers. The committee directs the
Secretary to provide its findings to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later
than November 1, 2018.

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense original
appointment and scrolling processes

As the committee continues to look for opportunities to
make military personnel management policy more adaptable, the
ability of the military to quickly and repeatedly transition
servicemembers between the active and reserve components is an
important step toward building a true continuum of service. The
committee understands that under current policy and practice,
transferring an officer from one component to another can take
up to 4 months. This extended timeline is likely a contributing
factor in declining reserve component affiliation rates and the
limited numbers of reserve component officers able to return to
the active component.
The committee also understands the current original
appointment policy contributes significantly to delays in
processing original appointments and promotions for both the
active and reserve component. In particular, military
department officials have repeatedly stated concerns related to
the ``scrolling'' process used to process officer original
appointments. This process may also affect the time required to
gain federal recognition of National Guard promotions. Despite
the recurring concerns, Department of Defense (DOD) and
military officials have been unable to articulate aspects of
the current process that may be accelerated either by policy or
legislative changes.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of DOD's original
appointment process and to provide preliminary observations to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by the end of February 2019. At that time, a
final product due date will be determined. The review shall
include: (1) An explanation of current original appointment
processes within all relevant organizations, including the
military departments, National Guard Bureau, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the White House Military Office, and the
Senate; (2) An explanation of the necessity for hard copy
scroll documents; and (3) A discussion of opportunities to
accelerate the original appointment process.

Comptroller General study of dependency determinations for
incapacitated adult children of military members

The committee has learned about potential problems
associated with dependency determinations made by the
Department of Defense for incapacitated adult children. In some
instances, adult children lose dependency status if they are
placed in group homes or other institutional settings. In other
cases, an adult child may not earn wages because those earnings
would impact a dependency determination.
As a result, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct a study of the Department's
policies, procedures, and processes for determining dependency
status of incapacitated adult children. In the conduct of this
study, the Comptroller General shall answer the following
questions:
(1) To qualify as a military dependent, the servicemember's
contribution to the incapacitated adult child's monthly living
expenses must be greater than half of the dependent's actual
living expenses. What additional criteria does the Department
use to determine dependency status of an incapacitated adult
child?
(2) How many servicemembers requested incapacitated adult
child dependency determinations over the last 5 years? How many
dependency determinations did the Department grant, by year,
over that time period?
(3) For a servicemember with an incapacitated adult child
in a group home or other institutional setting, what options
does the servicemember have to keep the family together
geographically in the event of a permanent change of station?
(4) What assistance does the Department provide to families
as they navigate the dependency determination process?
The Comptroller General shall brief the preliminary results
of such study to the committee not later than February 1, 2019.
At that time, the committee and the Comptroller General shall
determine a mutually agreeable date for submission of the final
report.

Dependent care flexible savings accounts

Congress authorized dependent care flexible spending
accounts for federal workers in 2003, but the uniformed
services have not yet developed a plan to offer such accounts.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) stated in a Sense of Congress that
uniformed servicemembers should be afforded access to pre-tax
flexible spending accounts. Additionally, Congress expressed
its desire that the Services and government agencies consider
life events of members of the uniformed services that are
unique to them as members of the uniformed services, including
changes relating to permanent changes of duty station and
deployments to overseas contingency operations.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
of Defense, with respect to members of the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with
respect to members of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, with respect to commissioned officers of
the Public Health Service, and the Secretary of Commerce, with
respect to commissioned officers of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, to implement flexible spending
arrangements with respect to basic pay and compensation for
dependent care on a pre-tax basis in accordance with
regulations prescribed under sections 106(c) and 125 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Facilitation of separation process and State veterans affairs offices

The committee is aware that Department of Defense policy
allows separating servicemembers to include an email address in
the remarks section of the DD Form 214, and that the Department
has been working toward electronic delivery of member service
and separation data that will allow authorized stakeholders,
including State veterans affairs offices, full access to data
that will provide faster and better access to benefits for
servicemembers.
To this end, the committee believes there is utility in
servicemembers providing their email addresses, but is
concerned that many choose not to. The committee encourages
service secretaries to ensure that separating servicemembers
are made aware, during their transition counseling, of the
benefits of providing an email address in the remarks block of
their DD Form 214. An email address is useful in facilitating
receipt of and access to veterans benefits, and to ensure a
continued contact with veterans if service-connected injuries
or other service-related issues arise post-military service, as
they often do.

Improvements to licensure and credentialing for military spouses

The committee remains concerned about the employment
difficulties military spouses face as a result of the rigors
and requirements of military life. Whether their 1st or 20th
move, many military spouses repeatedly encounter a costly and
lengthy process to meet the professional licensure and
credentialing requirements of their new State before they can
seek meaningful employment in their chosen field.
Depending on the profession and the requirements in each
State, military spouses can spend upwards of thousands of
dollars to become credentialed or licensed every time they
relocate. This cost alone may make it prohibitive for military
spouses to continue or pursue their own careers. For many, it
is not only the cost, but the time involved. A 2-year
assignment does not give a military spouse much time to find a
job if the licensing process in a given State takes 12 months.
In the Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey
from 2017, 28 percent of military spouses reported they were
unemployed and actively seeking work while 55 percent of
employed military spouses stated they were underemployed. When
compared to the current national unemployment rate of 4.1
percent, it is clear that military spouses experience greater
impediments when seeking full-time employment than their
civilian counterparts.
While Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Defense
(DOD) resources exist to aid military spouses in finding
employment or obtaining licensure and credentials after a move,
the committee believes that States are less engaged with their
military spouse populations than they should be and are often
unaware of the employment hardships military spouses endure.
The committee believes that States would benefit from better
understanding the significant and unique economic benefits
military spouses bring to local communities, which might
incentivize States to remove credentialing and licensure
barriers faced by military spouses.
The DOL and DOD resources, CareerOneStop and Military
OneSource respectively, offer varying and disparate levels of
information on the States' requirements for credentials and
licensure. CareerOneStop provides more helpful information,
while Military OneSource offers a more user-friendly
experience. On both web sites, information appears incomplete
and outdated. With military families moving every few years,
having easily accessible, accurate, and current information on
military spouse employment might make the difference between a
single-income military family and a dual-income one.
The committee notes there is unfortunately no one-stop
resource for military spouses to find the information each
State requires on professional credentials and licensure, and
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation and
coordination with the Secretary of Labor, to update the
Military OneSource spouse licensure map on its internet web
site and to provide a certification letter to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that the information on the web site is current, accurate, and
complete for each State and each profession requiring licensure
or certification. Further, the committee directs that this web
site be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure its
continuing accuracy and usefulness to military families.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the
National Governors Association, to review existing obstacles to
greater military spouse licensure and credentialing portability
across the States and to consider solutions to increase such
portability and the feasibility of these solutions. The
Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no
later than March 1, 2019, on the results of this review. The
report, at a minimum, shall include: (1) An analysis of the
prevalence of military spouses in each State, which would
include the total number of military spouses and the percentage
of the overall population in the State that are military
spouses; (2) The estimated impact of employment of military
spouses on State economies; (3) An assessment of the economic
impact of establishing licensing compacts or occupational
licensing boards to reduce occupational licensing burdens and
to remove certification impediments for military spouses; (4) A
summary of economic and other benefits to States relating to
increasing occupational licensing reciprocity for military
spouses; and (5) A summary of industry association and local
business views with respect to the facilitation of greater
credentialing and licensure portability for military spouses.

Inclusion of the study of hybrid warfare in professional military
education

The 2018 National Defense Strategy correctly noted that
Professional Military Education (PME) in the Department of
Defense is ``stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of
mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.''
The committee agrees with this sentiment and further notes PME
curriculum must be capable of adapting and teaching
servicemembers about new methods and forms of warfare.
Specifically, the emergence of hybrid warfare, where
adversaries often employ nonmilitary tools to pursue their
interests, is a subject frequently excluded from traditional
PME curriculum.
The committee supports the Department of Defense's renewed
focus on PME and therefore 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 December
1, 2018, explaining how the Department will emphasize what the
National Defense Strategy calls ``intellectual leadership and
military professionalism in the art and science of
warfighting.'' In particular, the report should explain how the
Department is integrating hybrid warfare concepts into in-
residence and distance learning PME curriculum to include the
study of past and present hybrid warfare campaigns.

Military childcare subsidies

The committee directs the Department of Defense to include
in its assessment of use of subsidized, off-Installation
childcare services, required by subsection (a) of section 575
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91), an assessment on modifying the rate of use
of subsidized, off-installation childcare services by military
families in light of the full implementation of
MilitaryChildCare.com, including whether the availability of
off-installation childcare services for military families could
be increased by altering policies of the Armed Forces on
capping the amount of subsidies for military families for such
services based on the cost of living for families and the
average cost of civilian childcare services.

National Guard Federal promotion delays

The committee recognizes that soldiers and airmen in the
National Guard are unique because their appointments and
promotion to a higher rank are governed by their states and are
subsequently reviewed and approved for Federal recognition by
the Federal Government. The committee continues to believe that
a thorough review of officer character and conduct is
necessary, but is concerned about reports that bureaucratic
obstacles in the scrolling process are unduly slowing Federal
recognition of National Guard promotions.
Delays in Federal recognition can have negative
consequences for National Guard officers, who often assume a
more senior role while waiting for their promotion to be
federally recognized, still receiving the pay and benefits of a
more junior grade. Delays impact time in grade, or can result
in officers being assigned to lesser positions than they are
qualified to perform. It also means that National Guard
officers may not be assigned to positions of additional
responsibility, such as command, when working hand-in-hand with
their Active-Duty counterparts on a Federal mission.
Therefore, the committee has included a provision that
would provide service secretaries with discretion to adjust the
date of rank of National Guard officers when promotions are
unduly delayed. The committee urges the service secretaries to
use this authority to expeditiously identify and proactively
address National Guard officers whose promotions have been
unfairly subjected to bureaucratic delay.

National Guard mental health pilot program

The committee remains concerned with the high suicide rate
present in the National Guard and endorses efforts by the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau to increase access and resources
for behavioral health treatment and support for members of the
National Guard. The committee is supportive of the efforts
taken by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to establish
the National Guard Warrior Resilience and Fitness Program, an
integrated approach to using embedded behavioral health models
to leverage enhanced screening tools and predictive analytics
to identify mental health risk and provide early, targeted
intervention. Not later than December 1, 2018, the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau shall provide a letter report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the Warrior Resilience and Fitness Program,
including its impact on readiness, resiliency and suicide
prevention.

Permanent change of station frequency and impact on military families

The committee applauds military spouses for being
adaptable, resilient, innovative problem solvers with an
unwavering commitment to our nation and our military
servicemembers. Yet frequent moves to accommodate
servicemembers military careers--on average every 3 or 4
years--take a significant toll on spouses ability to maintain
viable career paths. By the time military spouses find a home,
secure childcare services, and get settled into a new job, it
is often time for them to start thinking about the next move.
The tempo of these constant moves has multiple effects: (1)
Employers are reluctant to hire military spouses knowing there
is a good chance they will move soon; (2) Military spouses are
left to multiple instances of underemployment or unemployment;
and (3) State-approved credentials may not transfer.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives setting forth an
assessment of the effects of the frequency of permanent changes
of station (PCS) of members of the Armed Forces on stability of
employment among military spouses. The report shall include the
following: (1) An assessment of the effects of the frequency of
PCS of members of the Armed Forces on stability of employment
among military spouses, including the contribution of frequent
PCS to unemployment or underemployment among military spouses;
(2) An assessment of the effects of unemployment and
underemployment among military spouses on force readiness; and
(3) Such recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding legislative or administrative action to achieve force
readiness and stabilization by minimizing the impacts of
frequent PCS on stability of employment among military spouses.

Public-private partnerships on military installations

The committee is concerned that installation commanders
lack clear and consistent guidance on the process and
authorities available to them to seek and receive proposals to
enter into public-private partnerships with local
organizations, which would benefit military communities,
servicemembers, and their families. These partnerships range
from installation infrastructure and management services
(including fire, public safety, emergency medical, and other
emergency services), to services for servicemembers, families,
retirees, and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians (including
morale, welfare, and recreation activities), to mission-type
functions (including training opportunities with civilian
agencies).
RAND Corporation's 2016 report, Military Installation
Public-to-Public Partnerships, identified numerous barriers to
successful implementation of these types of cooperative
efforts. The committee is concerned that DOD is not doing
enough to overcome these obstacles, and that the Department's
policies and procedures are not clearly defined and
disseminated to installation commanders and their staff,
further inhibiting successful cooperation. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to review Department-level
policies and procedures to remove obstacles where they are
present and to ensure that all installation commanders and base
support staffs have received clear guidance outlining approved
processes to enter into public-private partnerships.

Reimbursement for certain costs incurred by states during domestic
emergencies

The committee recognizes that the National Guard is an
essential force providing effective emergency response
capabilities in the Homeland. However, during some complex
emergency responses, states are forced to assume fiscal risk
that can jeopardize their ability to accomplish the emergency
response deployment, and further place individual
servicemembers in conditions of compromised individual
protection, family protection, and compensation.
The committee notes that a mechanism exists in current law
where the Federal Government can reimburse a state that orders
its National Guard to State Active Duty to respond to certain
domestic emergencies. The committee understands that when the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is authorized to
reimburse states for National Guard utilization during a
domestic emergency, such reimbursement may take over a year to
reach the state. The committee further notes that exceedingly
long periods for reimbursement reduces states' ability to
respond to follow-on domestic emergencies or ones of extended
duration. For extended duration emergencies, such as those
suffered by states during the 2017 hurricane season, funding
requirements can extend beyond the current state fiscal year.
The committee also notes that states acting under the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact to provide mutual aid to another
state during a domestic emergency must obligate their own funds
to do so. These states are especially harmed by long
reimbursement timelines. Finally, the committee understands
these delays in reimbursement can harm military readiness.
Therefore, no later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, in
consultation with FEMA and the states, to report to the
congressional defense committees on suggested ways to expedite
the reimbursement process. The consultations should include
consideration of the process for requesting specific orders
status, the average time for the Federal Government to answer a
request from a state, and the criteria required to approve the
request.

Responding to cases of traumatic brain injury sustained in intimate
partner violence event

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) are at
increased risk of traumatic brain injuries (TBI), but these
injuries often go undiagnosed, which can lead to serious short-
and long-term health problems. Currently, there are few
research studies available on the relationship between IPV and
TBI, and it is uncommon for medical providers to screen or
treat for IPV-related TBI in emergency departments. The
committee is concerned, therefore, that TBIs resulting from IPV
may not be adequately evaluated, diagnosed, and treated in
military treatment facilities. As a result, the committee
strongly encourages training of all military first responders
to help them understand the occurrence of TBI in association
with IPV and to recognize those injuries early to expedite
further evaluation and treatment. Moreover, victim advocates,
law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and counselors must
understand the cognitive and behavioral effects of TBI in
association with IPV, such as loss of memory, confusion, or
agitation, and know how those effects can impact IPV survivors
during an investigation.

Senior Military Acquisition Advisor eligibility

The committee notes that the Department of Defense
requested an amendment to section 1725 of title 10, United
States Code, which established the position of Senior Military
Acquisition Advisor within each military department. The
requested modification would reduce the minimum required
commissioned service time for these positions from 30 years to
26 years of active commissioned service.
Typically, current law requires officers who are not
selected for promotion to general or flag officer retire upon
reaching 30 years of active commissioned service, therefore
making it nearly impossible to select an officer to fill the
Senior Military Acquisition Advisor position in the required
rank of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, captain. The
committee understands this restriction and has taken steps
elsewhere in this title to allow for officers to continue
serving beyond 30 years of service.
Specifically, as part of the committee's efforts to
modernize officer personnel management, this title includes a
provision to authorize service secretaries to allow officers in
the grade of O-2 or above to remain on Active Duty until
reaching 40 years of active service. This provision would
provide the legal relief requested by the Department, while
also ensuring officers assigned to these critical acquisition
roles have the experience desired by the committee when it
created the Senior Military Acquisition Advisor position.

Specialized workshops for transitioning servicemembers

The committee maintains an ongoing interest that
transitioning servicemembers receive the specific training they
need to transition successfully to civilian life, whether they
choose to pursue higher education, a career in a technical
field, or entrepreneurship. Under current law, the Department
of Defense must ensure that transitioning servicemembers
participate in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). In
response to this requirement, the Department has published
regulations and issued instructions that require eligible
servicemembers to complete TAP and that require commanding
officers ensure that servicemembers complete the program.
Beyond TAP's mandatory core curriculum, servicemembers are
also given the option to participate in a more specialized, 2-
day workshop in one or more of the following areas: (1) Higher
education; (2) Technical and skills training; or (3)
Entrepreneurship. The committee is concerned that, while the
core curriculum is necessary, it may be insufficient to enable
transitioning service-members to successfully transition to
civilian careers. While transitioning servicemembers may
supplement the core curriculum with at least one of the 2-day
workshops, these optional activities are rarely utilized. A
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, published in
November 2017, titled ``DOD Needs to Improve Performance
Reporting and Monitoring for the Transition Assistance
Program'' (GAO-18-23), stated that fewer than 15 percent of
transitioning enlisted servicemembers participated in one of
the 2-day workshops in fiscal year 2016. In the report, GAO
also noted that, at four of the seven military installations it
surveyed, commanders ``were less inclined to allow
servicemembers to attend theses classes because they were
considered optional.''
The committee is concerned that requiring transitioning
servicemembers to opt into a 2-day workshop signals to both
servicemembers and their commanders that the workshops may be
superfluous, thereby discouraging participation. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department to make certain that all
TAP-eligible servicemembers participate in one of the 2-day
workshops with waivers for servicemembers who expressly decline
such participation or whose participation would conflict with
imminent readiness requirements.

Training requirement for background check submissions

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
Inspector General has reported multiple, widespread failures to
comply with reporting requirements to send servicemembers'
criminal data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The
shooter who murdered worshipers in Sutherland Springs, Texas
was able to purchase a firearm despite his criminal record
because the Air Force failed to submit his information to the
FBI. Unfortunately, this is not the only case of a lapse in the
incorporation of military criminal records into the FBI's
background check databases.
As such, the committee encourages the Department to ensure
all personnel of military criminal investigation services who
are responsible for assembly or submittal of information to the
FBI receive specific training on the requirements, procedures,
and processes on how to submit relevant information into the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The
committee acknowledges that clear, thorough training for
military criminal investigation services personnel and other
relevant Department personnel will save lives by ensuring all
procedures and requirements are followed when reporting and
flagging criminal records to NICS.

Understanding military family experiences of intimate partner violence
and child abuse and neglect

The committee remains concerned about the rates of violence
within military families, which harm those families and impact
military family readiness. For fiscal year 2016, there were
13,916 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect to family
advocacy programs across the Services with 6,998 of those
incidents confirmed. Although rates of reported child abuse
have remained flat over the last ten years, the youngest
children remain the most vulnerable to lethal forms of abuse.
The Department of Defense (DOD) reported 18 child abuse-related
fatalities for fiscal year 2016. All of these victims were
under 5 years old and 50 percent of them were 1 year old or
younger. In five cases, the victim or offender was previously
known to Family Advocacy Program (FAP) officials.
Moreover, intimate partner violence is also a significant
issue within the Services with 8,673 reported incidents that
``met criteria'' in fiscal year 2016. DOD reported eight spouse
abuse fatalities and one intimate partner fatality related to
abuse for fiscal year 2016. In six cases, the victim or
offender was known to the FAP. In addition, DOD reported an
increase in the occurrence of sexual abuse in intimate partner
incidents.
Even though DOD cites the rate of reported child abuse and
neglect in the military at about half of the reported rate for
the civilian community, there are no data available to estimate
the actual prevalence of intimate partner violence and child
abuse and neglect in the military. DOD does not conduct a
survey of family members and therefore lacks these prevalence
rates.
As a result, the committee urges the Department to work
with a federally funded research and development center to
conduct anonymous surveys of family members to understand
better the prevalence of intimate partner violence and child
abuse and neglect in the military. The surveys should include
questions pertaining to perpetration of intimate partner
violence, victimization, specific incidents and types of
physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, psychological
aggression, economic abuse and/or interference with military
benefits, risk factors, and the unique stressors faced by
military families.

Use of data analytics to facilitate assignment matching and military
family stability

As the military migrates toward a talent management
personnel paradigm, the committee recommends each service
utilize advanced data analytics and new assignment matching
technologies to better match servicemembers to available
assignments. These technologies make assignment matching more
efficient and effective by aligning servicemember skills,
knowledge, and behavior with the unique demands of each
position. In some cases, it may be in the best interest of the
servicemember and the mission to allow an individual to remain
in a single location or unit for an extended period of time.
Extending assignments often comes with the added benefit of
providing stability to military families, who frequently
describe constant relocations as a major detractor from their
overall satisfaction with military life. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to continue developing
advanced assignment matching systems and policies based on data
analytics.

Use of reserve personnel for the Cyber Mission Force

As the military departments continue to formalize their
contribution to the U.S. Cyber Command Cyber Mission Force by
acquiring, training, and managing personnel with cyber-related
capabilities, the committee encourages creative utilization of
personnel who serve in the reserve component. The private
sector requirement for relevant cyber knowledge and experience
continues to grow, which means the reserve component may be the
ideal source of personnel who possess the skills necessary to
bolster the Cyber Mission Force.
The committee encourages service secretaries to use all
personnel authorities at their disposal to attract and retain
personnel for the Cyber Mission Force. In particular, the
committee is interested in novel approaches to the use of the
reserve component for this vital mission. As innovative
personnel policies are developed, the committee urges service
secretaries to identify legal constraints and to propose
changes to current law to improve the military's ability to
make itself an attractive employer for the nation's cyber
workforce.

Warm handoff for transitioning servicemembers suffering from post-
traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury

The committee notes that traumatic brain injury (TBI) and
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are often considered the
``signature wounds''' of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
More than 379,000 servicemembers have received a first-time
diagnosis for TBI since 2000, and data from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) show that 11-20 percent of veterans who
served in Iraq and Afghanistan experience PTSD every year.
Research indicates that TBI and PTSD are often associated with
other psychiatric or neurodegenerative conditions, including
mood and anxiety disorders, cognitive difficulties, and
increased rates of substance abuse and suicidal ideation, which
can inhibit recovery.
While initial diagnosis and treatment of PTSD and TBI often
occur within the military health system, the VA provides
ongoing care for separating servicemembers, including many who
have received one or both diagnoses. The committee recognizes
efforts by the Departments of Defense and VA in recent years to
support the transfer of severely wounded servicemembers with
ongoing complex care needs, including establishment of the
Interagency Care Coordination Committee to ensure a ``warm
hand-off'' between agencies. However, the committee remains
concerned that individuals without visible injuries, including
those who are experiencing cognitive or psychiatric
difficulties as a result of service-acquired TBI or PTSD, may
not be appropriately identified for similar complex care
management.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of VA, to establish policies
and procedures, no later than December 1, 2018, to ensure
continuity of care for any servicemember who has a diagnosis of
moderate or severe PTSD or TBI and who enrolls in care through
the VA upon transition from Active Duty to veteran status. The
Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services and Veterans Affairs of the Senate and the House of
Representatives within 30 days after establishing such policies
and procedures, describing the actions taken to facilitate
better transitions for this population.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2019 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pay raise of 2.6 percent for all members of the uniformed
services effective January 1, 2019.
Repeal of authority for payment of personal money allowances to Navy
officers serving in certain positions (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 414 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate
additional personal money allowance to certain naval officers
serving as President of the Naval Postgraduate School,
Commandant of Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, President of the
Naval War College, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, or
Director of Naval Intelligence.
Under current law, certain lower-ranking naval flag
officers are entitled to a greater personal money allowance
than the Chief of Naval Operations or Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Additionally, similar positions in the other
military services (e.g., Superintendent of the United States
Military Academy) are not entitled to the same additional
personal money allowance as naval officers. This provision
establishes consistent personal money allowance across the
Services for general and flag officers of the same rank and
position.

Department of Defense proposal for a pay table for members of the Armed
Forces using steps in grade based on time in grade rather than
time in service (sec. 603)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a proposal for a time in grade-
based pay table for military personnel. This provision would
also require the Comptroller General to review the proposal and
assess its effect on recruitment and retention.

Financial support for lessors under the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative during 2019 (sec. 604)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to pay up to 2 percent of the
calculated Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate to specific
lessors who provide on-base housing as part of the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI).
The committee notes that payments authorized by this
provision must be approved on a case-by-case basis. The
Secretary of Defense should approve payments to individual
lessors based on an assessment of the lessor's financial
status, condition of housing associated with the lessor, and
whether earnings from other privatized housing projects owned
by the lessor are sufficient to pay for costs at the specified
housing area. Prior to issuing any payment to a lessor, the
Secretary of Defense must notify the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
On March 13, 2018, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report titled ``Military Housing
Privatization: DOD Should Take Steps to Improve Monitoring,
Reporting, and Risk Assessment'' (GAO-18-218). Due to a lack of
consistent and timely data provided by both the Department of
Defense and individual privatized housing lessors, GAO was
unable to determine whether recent reductions to Basic
Allowance for Housing have had any negative effect on the long-
term viability of individual privatized housing projects.
Additionally, the decentralized approach pursued by each
service for on-base privatized housing agreements makes it
difficult to implement a centralized, general policy to correct
any identified funding shortfalls. The committee continues to
believe, as stated in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) Conference Report
(Conf. Rept. 115-404), ``This is a problem that the military
services and their MHPI partners must solve together.''
The committee directs the service secretaries, by no later
than September 1, 2018, to report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the
relative financial condition and future sustainability of each
MHPI project under their jurisdiction and the impact of the BAH
rate change on the future sustainability of those projects.
Additionally, the service secretaries are directed to implement
the recommendations of GAO-18-218 and provide an update to the
congressional defense committees by no later than September 1,
2018.

Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay
adjustment in annual basic pay of members of the uniformed
services (sec. 605)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to remove the
justification of serious economic conditions affecting the
general welfare from the waiver authority of the President to
make an alternative pay adjustment.

Eligibility of reserve component members for high-deployment allowance
for lengthy or numerous deployments and frequent mobilizations
(sec. 606)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 436 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize
reserve component personnel ordered to Active Duty under
section 12304b of title 10, United States Code, to receive a
high-deployment allowance for frequent or lengthy deployments.

Eligibility of reserve component members for nonreduction in pay while
serving in the uniformed services or National Guard (sec. 607)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5538(a) of title 5, United States code, that would
include reserve component personnel ordered to Active Duty
under section 12304b of title 10, United States Code, under
existing protections preventing reduction in pay while absent
from a position of employment with the Federal Government.

Temporary adjustment in rate of basic allowance for housing following
identification of significant underdetermination of civilian
housing costs for housing areas (sec. 608)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to allow the
Secretary of Defense to temporarily adjust current rates of
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for a military housing area
if the Secretary determines that the actual costs of adequate
housing in that military housing area differ from current BAH
rates by more than 20 percent. This authority provided by this
provision would expire on December 31, 2019.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

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

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 aviation
incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, special bonus
and incentive pay authorities for officers in health
professions, and contracting bonus for cadets and midshipmen
enrolled in the Senior Reserve 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 or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives for
members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to
high priority units.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the nurse officer candidate accession bonus and education
loan repayment for certain health professionals who serve in
the Selected Reserve.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay the special bonus and incentive pay for nuclear officers.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to
pay for income replacement for reserve component members
experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty
service.
The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority of
the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of
the Basic Allowance for Housing in areas impacted by natural
disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel.

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

Technical corrections in calculation and publication of special
survivor indemnity allowance cost of living adjustments (sec.
621)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1450(m) of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
Department of Defense to make special survivor indemnity
allowance cost of living adjustments consistent with the
survivor benefit plan and military retired pay.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Rates of per diem for long-term temporary duty assignments (sec. 631)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act providing
a cost-benefit analysis of the long-term per diem policy rate
change that became effective on November 1, 2014, consistent
with the principles and requirements of Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-94. If the Secretary fails to deliver
this analysis within 120 days after enactment of this Act, or
if the analysis demonstrates that the costs of this policy
change outweigh the benefits, and will continue to outweigh the
benefits, then the policy reverts to the policy in effect as of
October 31, 2014.

Prohibition on per diem allowance reductions based on the duration of
temporary duty assignment or civilian travel (sec. 632)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 474(d)(3) of title 37, United States Code, to prohibit
the Department of Defense from reducing per diem rates based on
the duration of a temporary duty assignment or civilian travel.

Items of Special Interest

Defense Commissary Agency and small businesses

The committee commends the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
for its efforts to achieve cost savings and to provide patrons
with an improved shopping experience through its current
transformation initiatives. DeCA strives to include small
businesses in its acquisition of fresh fruits and vegetables,
and these businesses can provide higher quality and fresher
produce at competitive prices because of their close proximity
to local commissaries. As DeCA's business transformation
proceeds, the committee encourages DeCA to continue utilizing
small businesses for the acquisition of fresh fruits and
vegetables.

Privatized on-base lodging program

The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Secretary
of Defense to make Department of Defense business operations
more efficient. As the Secretary noted in his February 2017
Memorandum, efficiencies will free up resources to enable ``a
larger, more capable and more lethal Joint force.'' One
possible area that should be considered in the Department's
review of business operations is the on-base lodging program.
The committee has watched with interest as the Army has
privatized base lodging operations over the last several years.
As the Army continues to express satisfaction with its program,
the Department is encouraged to analyze the Army's privatized
base lodging program and determine whether a similar model
would be suitable for the other military departments. The
Department should ensure that any expansion of the privatized
base lodging program carefully considers cost, quality, and
ability to support the military's unique mission.
The committee looks forward to reviewing the Department's
analysis as it considers options to consolidate and privatize
base lodging for the Navy and Air Force, and urges the
Department to keep the congressional defense committees
informed before implementing any changes to existing on-base
lodging programs.

Small business access to military exchange stores

The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to
work with the military exchange services to develop strategies
for featuring small business products, particularly those from
veteran-owned firms, in military exchange stores. The committee
acknowledges that exchange stores, as non-appropriated fund
instrumentalities of the DOD, are not required to give any
preference to vendors and suppliers. However, the committee
also recognizes that exchange stores are uniquely positioned to
feature products from small businesses, especially veteran-
owned firms. Therefore, the committee urges the military
exchange services to make a substantive effort to use small
businesses as suppliers when possible.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits

Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Select and
TRICARE Prime (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1075 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate
cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Prime and Select. This
provision would eliminate the grandfathering of cost-sharing
requirements for beneficiaries enrolled in the TRICARE program
prior to January 1, 2018, as authorized in section 701 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). The amendments under this provision would take
effect on January 1, 2019.
The committee is aware that TRICARE beneficiaries enrolled
in the TRICARE program prior to January 1, 2018, have
experienced higher co-payments for medical services under
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select than those beneficiaries
enrolled after that date. This provision would correct an
inequity in the TRICARE benefit among beneficiaries by
establishing a single co-payment structure applicable to all
TRICARE beneficiaries.
Administration of TRICARE dental plans through the Federal Employees
Dental Insurance Program (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8951(8) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize
eligibility of Active-Duty family members, non-activated
National Guard/Reserve members, family members of National
Guard/Reserve members, and certain survivors under the Federal
Employees Dental Insurance Program (FEDVIP) beginning on or
after January 1, 2022. This provision would also amend
subsection (b) of section 1076(a) of title 10, United States
Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to administer
TRICARE's dental insurance plans, through an agreement with the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to allow
eligible beneficiaries to enroll in an insurance plan under
chapter 89A of title 5, United States Code, in accordance with
terms (to the extent practicable as defined by the Director
through regulation) prescribed by the Secretary, including
terms consistent with subsection (d) and, to the extent
practicable in relation to chapter 89A, other provisions of
this section.
Section 715 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) authorized beneficiaries
eligible for the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program to enroll in a
dental insurance plan under the Federal Employees Dental and
Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). This provision would extend
highly regarded dental insurance coverage, available through
the FEDVIP, to eligible TRICARE Dental Program beneficiaries
and would provide better choices of dental plans for improved
dental health of those beneficiaries.
Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE Program (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1074d(b)(3), 1075(c), 1075a(b), and 1074g(a)(6) of
title 10, United States Code, to require coverage of
contraception services for covered beneficiaries under the
TRICARE program. The provision would prohibit cost-sharing for
any method of contraception provided by a TRICARE network
provider and for any prescription contraceptive on the uniform
formulary provided by a network retail pharmacy provider or the
mail order pharmacy program. The effective date of this
provision would be January 1, 2020.
Pilot program on opioid management in the military health system (sec.
704)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Defense Health Agency to implement a
comprehensive pilot program, for a period of not more than 3
years, to minimize early opioid exposure in beneficiaries under
the TRICARE program and to prevent misuse or abuse of opioid
medications. The pilot program would begin within 180 days of
the date of the enactment of this Act, and it would include
elements to maximize opioid safety across the entire continuum
of care, consisting of patient, physician or dentist, and
pharmacist. Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
not later than 180 days before the completion of the pilot
program, describing the conduct of the program. Finally, the
provision would authorize the Director to implement the pilot
program on a permanent basis if the Director determines that
the pilot program successfully reduces early opioid exposure in
TRICARE beneficiaries and prevents progression to misuse or
abuse of opioid medications.

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for post-
traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma (sec. 705)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, not to
extend beyond 3 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act, to assess the feasibility and advisability of using
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, the pilot program would be
carried out through partnerships with public, private, and non-
profit health care organizations or institutions that: 1)
Provide health care to members of the Armed Forces; 2) Provide
evidence-based treatment for psychological and neurological
conditions common to members of the Armed Forces; 3) Provide
health care, support, and other benefits to family members of
members of the Armed Forces; and 4) Provide health care under
the TRICARE program. The provision would establish pilot
program activities and would require the Secretary to install
evaluation metrics before commencement of the program. In
addition, the provision would require the Secretary to submit
an initial report describing the pilot program to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The Secretary would then submit a final
report to the same committees not later than 180 days after
completion of the pilot program.

Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Improvement of administration of Defense Health Agency and military
medical treatment facilities (sec. 711)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1073c(a) of title 10, United States Code, to improve
and enhance the administration of the Defense Health Agency and
military medical treatment facilities (MTFs). Under this
provision, the Defense Health Agency (DHA) would have the
following additional authorities to: (1) Direct, control, and
serve as the primary rater of the performance of commanders or
directors of MTFs; (2) Direct and control any intermediary
organizations between the Defense Health Agency and MTFs; (3)
Determine the scope of medical care provided at each MTF to
meet the military personnel readiness requirements of the
senior military operational commander of the military
installation; (4) Determine total workforce requirements at
each MTF; (5) Direct joint manning at MTFs and intermediary
organizations; (6) Establish training and skills sustainment
venues for military medical personnel; (7) Address personnel
staffing shortages at MTFs; and (8) Approve service nominations
for commanders or directors of MTFs. The provision would also
amend section 1073c(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to
require the DHA Director to ensure that the DHA meets the
military personnel readiness requirements of the senior
military operational commanders of military installations.
In Conference Report 115-404, accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91), the conferees expressed concerns with the Department of
Defense's original plan to implement section 702 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) and voiced a strong commitment to reform the
organization and governance of the military health system. Even
with this clear direction from the conferees, the Department
has again failed to provide a credible, detailed plan to
implement section 702. As a result, the committee believes that
this provision would further clarify the intent of section 702
and lead to enhanced operational medical force readiness and
total force readiness, improved access to care, improved
quality of care, and a better experience of care that soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines (and their families) deserve.

Organizational framework of the military healthcare system to support
medical requirements of the combatant commands (sec. 712)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the
Defense Health Agency (Director), to commence implementation,
not later than October 1, 2018, of an organizational framework
of the military health system that: (1) Effectively implements
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code; (2) Maximizes
interoperability; and (3) Fully integrates the medical
capabilities of the Armed Forces to enhance joint military
medical operations in support of combatant command
requirements.
The provision would authorize the Director to conduct a
phased implementation, in compliance with section 1073c of
title 10, United States Code, of a new organizational framework
with full implementation required not later than October 1,
2020. The provision would establish no more than three health
readiness regions in the continental United States, and each
region would be led by a commander or director appointed to a
grade no higher than major general or rear admiral. Each
military department would nominate qualified individuals to
serve in those positions, and the Director would select those
individuals to serve as health readiness regional commanders or
directors under the authority, direction, and control of such
Director.
Under this provision, the Director would establish a
regional hub at a major military medical center in each region
to provide complex, specialized medical services. Each regional
hub would be geographically located to maximize medical support
to combatant commands. The provision would authorize the
Director to establish or maintain additional medical centers in
locations with large beneficiary populations or locations that
serve as the primary readiness platforms of the Armed Forces.
In addition, this provision would authorize the Director to
establish up to two health readiness regions outside the
continental United States. The provision would prescribe
certain additional duties and responsibilities of the Director
related to readiness, operational medicine support, and
beneficiary healthcare delivery.
Moreover, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense, through the service secretaries, to disestablish the
medical departments of the Services, and any subordinate
commands or organizations, not later than October 1, 2019, and
to establish operational medical force readiness organizations
in each service, led by the Services' Surgeons General. These
organizations would have no command authority. Finally, the
provision would prescribe the responsibilities of the Services'
operational medical force readiness organizations.
In March 2018, the committee received the Department's
third interim report, which described its most recent plan to
implement section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). After careful review
of this interim report, however, the committee remains
frustrated with the Department's plan to reform the military
health system. In the committee's view, the plan fails to
maximize interoperability as it does not fully integrate the
medical capabilities of the Services to enhance joint medical
operations. The plan maintains the Services' medical
departments and establishes new, stove-piped service commands
whose responsibilities would be to oversee medical force
readiness and to provide administrative support to military
medical personnel, a function that could otherwise be
effectively provided by other units reporting directly to the
Services' line commanders.
In addition, the plan would not fully eliminate duplicative
activities carried out by the Defense Health Agency and the
Services' medical departments. For example, the plan would
reduce total medical headquarters personnel by only 165 full-
time equivalent positions--out of 6,400 total positions--
through 2023. Clearly, the plan demonstrates that the Services
intend to maintain many, if not most, existing medical
headquarters functions and current staffing levels while
disregarding the call for innovation and efficiency included
throughout the Department's National Defense Strategy.
To address these concerns and many others, this provision
would thoughtfully prescribe a centralized organizational
framework for the military health system that more clearly
focuses the entire system on: (1) Improving total force
readiness; (2) Meeting the actual medical requirements of
combatant commanders; (3) Improving proficiency training for
military medical providers in a fully integrated, joint
training environment; and (4) Ensuring greater efficiencies in
the delivery of healthcare services, while providing high
quality, safe medical care and improving the experience of care
for all beneficiaries.

Streamlining of TRICARE Prime beneficiary referral process (sec. 713)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to streamline the process under section
1095f of title 10, United States Code, by which TRICARE Prime
beneficiaries are referred to the civilian provider network for
inpatient and outpatient care under the TRICARE program. The
provision would prescribe certain objectives for the
streamlined referral process and require implementation in
calendar year 2019. Additionally, the provision would require
the Secretary to conduct an annual evaluation of the referral
process and make improvements to the process as a result of the
annual evaluation.
Currently, TRICARE Prime beneficiaries must undergo an
exhaustive 10-step process to obtain a referral for medical
care in the civilian provider network. This burdensome referral
process unnecessarily delays medical evaluation and treatment,
frustrating beneficiaries and creating dissatisfaction with the
TRICARE program. The committee believes that the Defense Health
Agency must quickly re-engineer the referral process to
eliminate inefficient and unnecessary steps to improve the
experience of care for TRICARE Prime beneficiaries.

Sharing of information with State prescription drug monitoring programs
(sec. 714)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a program
comparable to prescription drug monitoring programs operated by
the States, including programs approved by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under section 3990 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-3). This program would apply
to designated controlled substance prescriptions under the
Department of Defense's pharmacy benefits program. Under this
provision, the Secretary would establish appropriate procedures
for bi-directional sharing of patient-specific information
regarding prescriptions for designated controlled substances
between the program and State prescription drug monitoring
programs, including any program operated by a county,
municipality, or other subdivision within that State, to
prevent misuse or diversion of opioid medications and other
designated controlled substances. The provision would also
authorize the Secretary to treat the disclosure of patient-
specific information as an authorized disclosure for purposes
of the health privacy regulations promulgated under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-191).

Improvement of reimbursement by Department of Defense of entities
carrying out state vaccination programs in connection with
vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE
program (sec. 715)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 719(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 10 U.S.C. 1074g note) to
require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse an entity
carrying out a State vaccination program for making
vaccinations available to TRICARE covered beneficiaries. The
provision would also stipulate that subparagraph (B) of section
719 should not apply to amounts assessed by entities providing
independent verification that the assessments of such entities
are below the costs of the private sector in making vaccines
available.

Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 721)

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, 2019, to
September 30, 2020.

Increase in number of appointed members of the Henry M. Jackson
Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (sec. 722)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 178(c)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code, to
increase the number of appointed members of the council of
directors of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the
Advancement of Military Medicine from four to six members.

Cessation of requirement for mental health assessment of members after
redeployment from a contingency operation upon discharge or
release from the Armed Forces (sec. 723)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074m of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the
requirement to provide a mental health assessment (MHA) to a
servicemember after redeployment if the individual has been
discharged from military service. Under current law, there is
no requirement to provide an MHA to a servicemember 90 to 180
days after redeployment if the individual has been discharged;
however, the cessation of the requirement to provide an MHA
after a member has been discharged does not currently apply to
MHAs required at 180 days to 18 months after redeployment and
18 months to 30 months after redeployment.

Pilot program on earning by special operations forces medics of credits
towards a physician assistant degree (sec. 724)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to conduct a
pilot program, for a period not greater than 5 years, to assess
the feasibility and advisability of partnerships between
special operations forces and institutions of higher education,
and health systems if determined appropriate by the Assistant
Secretary, through which special operations forces medics earn
credit towards a master's degree of physician assistant for
military operational work and training. The provision would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit an initial report,
within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, that describes: (1) A comprehensive framework
for the military education to be provided under the program;
(2) Metrics to be used to assess the effectiveness of the
program; and (3) Mechanisms to be used by the Department,
medics, or both to cover the costs of education received by
medics.
In addition, the Secretary of Defense would submit a final
report, not later than 180 days after completion of the pilot
program, to the same committees, which provides an: (1)
Evaluation of the pilot program using the metrics of assessment
set forth in the initial report; (2) Assessment of the utility
of funding mechanisms as set forth in the initial report; (3)
Assessment of the effects of the program on recruitment and
retention of special operations forces medics; and (4)
Assessment of the feasibility and advisability of extending any
authorities for joint professional military education under
chapter 107 of title 10, United States Code, to warrant
officers or enlisted personnel.

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations for
specialized medical training (sec. 725)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, for a period
of not more than 3 years, to assess the feasibility and
advisability of establishing partnerships with public, private,
and non-profit organizations and institutions to provide short-
term specialized medical training to advance the medical skills
and capabilities of military medical providers. Prior to
commencement of the pilot program, the Secretary would
establish metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
The provision would require the Secretary to submit an initial
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives 180 days prior to initiation of
the pilot program that includes a description of the program,
the metrics used to evaluate the program, and any other matters
relating to the program that the Secretary considers
appropriate. Not later than 180 days after the completion of
the pilot program, the Secretary would submit a final report to
the same committees that includes an assessment of the
effectiveness of the program. The committee considers this
provision to be an important element in helping military
medical providers advance their skills and capabilities in
specialties such as orthopedic surgery that would improve the
medical readiness of the total force.
The budget request included $32.5 billion in Defense Health
Program, Operations and Maintenance. The amount authorized to
be appropriated in Operations and Maintenance, line number 060,
includes the following changes from the budget request.

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Specialized Medical Training Pilot Program............ +2.5

Registry of individuals exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
on military installations (sec. 726)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a registry for
individuals who have been exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.

Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments for members of the
Armed Forces and related research efforts (sec. 727)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to incorporate medical screening questions
specific to gambling disorder into the annual periodic health
assessment conducted by the Department of Defense for members
of the Armed Forces. The provision would also require the
Secretary to incorporate gambling disorder questions into
ongoing research efforts, including by restoring such questions
into health-related behavior surveys of Active-Duty and reserve
component personnel. Finally, the provision would require the
Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, within 2 years of the date of the enactment of this
Act, which describes efforts made to comply with this provision
and provides findings of assessments and surveys with respect
to prevalence of gambling disorder among members of the Armed
Forces.

Comptroller General review of Defense Health Agency oversight of
TRICARE managed care support contractors (sec. 728)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the
congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days of
the date of the enactment of this Act, a report reviewing the
Defense Health Agency's oversight of the transition of TRICARE
managed care support contractors. The provision would require
the Comptroller General to conduct subsequent reviews of any
transition of managed care support contractors of the TRICARE
program and to submit reports to the same committees.

Items of Special Interest

Critical gaps in military physician specialties

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a
report titled ``Military Personnel: Additional Actions Needed
to Address Gaps in Military Physician Specialties'' (GAO-18-77)
on February 28, 2018, which described the Department of
Defense's (DOD) gaps in physician authorizations (funded
positions) and end strengths (number of physicians on hand).
The report discussed how DOD's approach to address physician
specialty gaps ``does not include targeted and coordinated
strategies to address key physician shortages.'' Additionally,
the GAO established that all of the Services' components
(active and reserve) had several physician specialties at
levels below 80 percent of authorized levels and that many of
those gaps were in critically short wartime specialties, such
as critical care/trauma medicine, aviation medicine, and
cardiac/thoracic surgery.
Currently, the Services primarily rely on the Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) and the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) to
access physicians. While the Services ``generally meet their
AFHPSP and USUHS recruitment goals,'' they continually
experience gaps in critical specialties because the Services do
not ``channel students into residencies for the specialties in
most critical need.'' Moreover, the GAO concluded that most
medical students met minimal qualifications for acceptance into
the AFHPSP and the USUHS but the DOD does not consistently
track data on its students, ``potentially hindering
opportunities to improve the quality of its accession
programs.'' Finally, the GAO found that the USUHS has not
determined the costs of educating its medical students, which
may hinder ``DOD's ability to understand its full funding needs
for its primary accession programs.''
The committee is concerned about the Department's failure
to comprehensively address the long-standing gaps in critical
military physician specialties across the Services. As a
result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the
service secretaries to provide a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
by January 1, 2019, that provides a comprehensive plan
addressing all of the recommendations in the GAO report. In
addition, the plan should include the Department's
recommendations for changes to its physician accession
programs, which may be required to ensure recruitment and
retention of highly qualified physicians to address gaps in
critical wartime medical specialties.

Emerging technologies to mitigate and prevent traumatic brain injury

The committee applauds the Department of Defense for its
ongoing efforts to develop mitigation/prevention strategies for
traumatic brain injuries (TBI). These efforts include
exploration of emerging technologies that show promise in
greatly reducing the occurrence of TBI. The committee
understands that Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
has successfully tested various innovative technologies to
prevent TBI. To the committee's knowledge, however, these
efforts have not yet led to the rapid fielding of these new
technologies in military training or combat environments.
Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of
Defense to establish an inter-service work group to develop a
joint strategy to identify material solutions to mitigate and
prevent TBI. The committee believes that this strategy should
include a detailed review of the recent findings from
successful testing of emerging technologies, followed by
development of a comprehensive plan for rapidly identifying,
testing, and fielding new technologies to mitigate and prevent
TBI.

Expedited development and approval of medical products for emergency
use on the battlefield

The committee is aware that a top priority for the
Department of Defense's Combat Casualty Care Research Program
is to optimize survival and recovery from combat-related
injuries by advancing and improving damage control
resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage, forward surgical and
intensive critical care, casualty transport, and care for
traumatic brain injury and other neurological trauma. Pathogen
inactivation of blood products can facilitate the collection of
blood in austere operating areas because it can eliminate the
need for laboratory testing in such settings while still
ensuring blood safety. To accomplish goals of optimizing
survival and recovery, the Department needs to develop and
transition to pathogen-inactivated blood products, including
whole blood, platelets, plasma, and red blood cells that are
ultimately authorized or approved for use under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Service Act
in treating U.S. military forces. The committee encourages the
Defense Health Agency to use Congressionally Directed Peer-
Reviewed Medical Research Program funding to expedite the
development and approval of medical products for use on the
battlefield.

Explore feasibility of implementing a combat readiness assessment tool

To ensure a more deployable, resilient force, the Services
need a tool to validate the physical fitness of the warfighter
and to aid in the determination of combat readiness. The
committee is aware of technology using machine learning and
force plate measurements that can help develop personalized,
evidence-based training programs to prevent injuries in
athletes. This technology could provide: (1) Accurate,
actionable insights regarding the physical condition of each
warfighter; and (2) A customized fitness program for each
warfighter to help minimize injuries during combat. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to explore the
feasibility of using this technology to assess the physical
fitness of the warfighter.

Extended Care Health Option respite care services

The committee remains concerned about limitations in the
Department of Defense's respite care benefit under the Extended
Care Health Option (ECHO) program. Congress established the
ECHO program to substitute for State Medicaid Waiver Program
services, which are often unavailable to highly mobile military
families. The committee believes that the services provided by
State Medicaid Waiver Programs should serve as the benchmark
for ECHO-covered services. Therefore, the committee strongly
encourages the Department to expand ECHO respite care services
to align with the average number of respite hours provided by
State Medicaid Waiver Programs.

Health risk surveillance of servicemembers in the United States Special
Operations Command

The committee commends the efforts of the United States
Special Operations Command to develop an information system to
track the health status of Special Operations Forces personnel
with the goal of proactively identifying, studying, and
mitigating health risk. This effort is a cooperative endeavor
involving the John P. Murtha Cancer Center at Walter Reed
National Military Medical Center, the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), and the Oncology
Research Information Exchange Network, a network of major
academic centers that has developed a uniform protocol for
long-term patient surveillance. The committee encourages the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), in
coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, to continue
assisting the United States Special Operations Command in
adapting this protocol for use in addressing risk and improving
the overall health of military populations.

MHS GENESIS

The committee recognizes the importance of implementing a
modern electronic health record system that is interoperable
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). An interoperable system will ensure
sharing of servicemembers' health records with private sector
healthcare systems and individual providers and will ease
servicemembers' transition to the VA healthcare system upon
separation from military service.
On May 17, 2018, VA signed a contract with Cerner
Corporation officially ensuring deployment of DOD and VA
electronic health records systems on the same operational
platform in the future. This historic overhaul of the health
record systems of the two largest government agencies requires
transparency, accountability, and oversight. To ensure
efficient and responsible implementation, the Secretary of
Defense shall use existing and future inter-agency governance
structures and collaboration between VA and DOD health record
program offices to make certain a continued commitment to full
DOD-VA interoperability and to share lessons learned and best
practices associated with the deployment and sustainment of MHS
GENESIS.

Mild traumatic brain injury screening tests

The committee remains concerned that servicemembers who
have suffered head injuries resulting in concussions or mild
traumatic brain injuries (mTBI) may not be receiving the
optimal level of available screening. Concussions can result in
a prolonged recovery period with individuals reporting
persistent symptoms over long periods of time. Individuals
exposed to repetitive concussive events, especially those
lacking early and accurate screening, are at high risk for
long-term negative consequences to brain health, including the
development of chronic neuro-degenerative disease. The
committee is aware of approaches to screening for concussions
and mTBI that assess rapid eye movements. Professional,
collegiate, and amateur sports leagues have widely adopted
these screening techniques in concussion screening protocols.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess the
feasibility of including eye movement screening tests in the
existing mTBI protocols for injured servicemembers.

Procurement of telehealth solutions and services

The committee recognizes the growing importance of
telehealth in delivering accessible, quality healthcare to
military servicemembers and their families. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on
limited competition awards for telehealth services and has not
always implemented the most effective telehealth solutions. The
committee expects the DOD to use commercial-off-the-shelf
technology solutions and non-developmental items and to limit
excessively restrictive specification standards that may
restrict or eliminate fair and open competition to provide the
most effective telehealth services available.

Prostate cancer incidence among Active-Duty servicemembers

The committee recognizes that prostate cancer is the most
prevalent cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer
mortality. In men younger than age 65, the prostate cancer
mortality rate for African-Americans is 3.1 times greater than
in Caucasians. In Americans age 65 and older, the mortality
rate for African-American males is 2.3 times greater than
Caucasians. More research is needed to better understand the
incidence of prostate cancer rates by race among Active-Duty
servicemembers, as well as any existing disparities in the
diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer in this population.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to evaluate and provide a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 180
days that: (1) Examines the incidence of prostate cancer by
race among Active-Duty servicemembers, including information
detailing disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of
prostate cancer with a focus on African-American men; and (2)
Describes a plan for addressing any disparities and expanding
access to diagnosis and treatment options for Active-Duty
servicemembers.

Rapid cerebral therapeutic hypothermia

The committee is aware of the benefits of therapeutic
hypothermia for traumatic brain injury, as well as its
applications for various conditions including cardiac arrest,
severe blood loss due to combat injury, and heat stroke. Recent
evidence indicates that rapidly applied brain cooling can
reduce or prevent brain damage even in cases of mild injury,
such as concussion. The current evidence-based recommendation
is to initiate therapeutic hypothermia as soon as possible, as
brain damage can occur immediately after an incident. The
committee encourages the Department to explore non-invasive,
lightweight devices that rapidly initiate localized cerebral
cooling at the point of the injury.

Regenerative medicine research and development

The Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM)
delivers new technologies that will lead to functional and
aesthetic recovery from severe injuries incurred in military
service. AFIRM has advanced the development of restorative
therapies for battlefield trauma, and this important work has
led to 18 clinical trials with 3 trials already completed. Many
technical challenges remain, however, before the Department of
Defense (DOD) can realize the full potential of regenerative
medicine in restoring the health and performance of wounded
warfighters.
The committee is aware of the many emerging breakthrough
treatments for severely wounded servicemembers that have
resulted from AFIRM's public-private consortium approach to
regenerative medicine research and development. The committee
encourages the DOD to sustain the pace of scientific advances
and military-relevant technology development in regenerative
medicine through another multiyear public-private consortium
modeled on AFIRM's two previous research and development
consortium efforts.

TRICARE access study

Not later than 180 days from the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration, shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
a report on the number of individuals who: (1) Are retired from
the Armed Forces under chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code; (2) Are entitled to hospital insurance benefits under
part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to
receiving benefits for 24 months as described in subparagraph
(A) or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
426(b)(2)); and (3) Because of such entitlement, are no longer
enrolled in TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Select (as those terms are
defined in section 1072 of title 10, United States Code) under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code.

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

Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management

Permanent Supply Chain Risk Management Authority (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would permanently
extend the authority provided in section 806 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) regarding the management of supply chain risk and
would clarify the Secretary of Defense's ability to make
determinations under the authority to apply throughout the
Department of Defense.
Commercially available market research (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2431a of title 10, United States Code, to define the
market research requirement of major defense acquisition
program acquisition strategies. This provision is intended to
improve the Department of Defense's capacity to conduct market
research by diversifying the sources and methods used.
The committee notes that a growing share of the
Department's spending is on information technology products and
services and believes robust market research is critical to
acquisition planning. The committee believes that sufficient
attention is not being given to market research and is
concerned that the Department's sources of data for market
research are limited and lack diversity.
The committee therefore encourages the Department's
contracting officers to use commercially available detailed
third-party market research, which should include any
disclosures of a third-party's interests and which should be
considered by contracting officers in the context of all
available data sources, to ensure that they have the best and
most complete information available in developing and executing
their acquisition strategies.
Comptroller General assessment on acquisition programs and related
initiatives (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, to establish an
annual assessment by the Comptroller General of the United
States of Department of Defense acquisition programs and
initiatives.
The committee notes that the Comptroller General's annual
assessment of selected weapons programs has been a highly
valued product supporting the defense committees' oversight for
over 15 years. The Comptroller General's reviews over the past
decade on major automated information systems, and defense
business systems have similarly facilitated such oversight.
The committee notes with concern that the Department of
Defense's warfighting, business, and enterprise capabilities
are increasingly reliant on or driven by software and
information technology. The Department of Defense is behind
other Federal agencies and industry in implementing best
practices for acquisition of software and information
technology capabilities, to include agile and incremental
development methods along with associated training, tools, and
infrastructure.
The committee believes that, given the role of software and
information technology in acquisition programs and initiatives
across the Department both to conduct its missions as well as
to balance its books, the Comptroller General's assessments
must continue to keep pace.
Further, the committee notes that recent years have seen
the most significant reform of the Department's acquisition
function since the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-23), to include expansion of acquisition
authorities, organizational realignments, delegation of
acquisition execution to the Services, and rapid acquisition
and prototyping authorities and offices.
The committee notes that, in past work on weapons systems,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has developed
criteria for analysis and oversight over programs. The
committee expects that similar work from other areas within the
organization can lead to similar methodologies for software and
alternative acquisition pathways. Accordingly, this provision
directs the Comptroller General to consolidate separate
reporting on these initiatives, leveraging assessment criteria
from across the GAO and outside experts, in order to provide a
cohesive analysis that recognizes the complexity of the
acquisition system. The provision also repeals an obsolete GAO
reporting requirement.

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

Department of Defense contracting dispute matters (sec. 811)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a study of the frequency and
effects of bid protests involving the same Department of
Defense contract award or proposed award that have been filed
at both the Government Accountability Office and the Court of
Federal Claims, and establish a data collection system to
better track and analyze bid protest trends in the future.
The committee notes that the Rand study on the bid protest
process (``Assessing Bid Protest of U.S. Department of Defense
Procurements''') mandated by the Fiscal Year 2017 National
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 114-328) recommended that
policymakers and Department of Defense leadership should
``consider implementing an expedited process for adjudicating
bid protests of procurement contracts with values under $0.1
million.'' The committee believes that this type of expedited
process, akin to a traffic court, would help resolve smaller
and generally simpler cases commensurate with their value while
preserving the right to an independent protest.
Continuation of technical data rights during challenges (sec. 812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2321(i) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that the government may continue to exercise rights in
technical data and noncommercial computer software during the
course of a challenge with an incumbent contractor under
section 2321(d) of title 10, United States Code, or under
procedures established by the Department of Defense, to meet
Department of Defense mission requirements and readiness needs
during the course of the challenge.
Increased micro-purchase threshold (sec. 813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1902(a)(1) of title 41, United States Code, to align
the micro-purchase threshold for the Department of Defense to
the micro-purchase threshold for all government agencies at
$10,000.
Modification of limitations on single source task or delivery order
contracts (sec. 814)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2304a(d)(3)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify the applicable standard for task or delivery order
contract awards.
Preliminary cost analysis requirement for exercise of multiyear
contract authority (sec. 815)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2306b(i)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to
require that the preliminary findings of the agency head be
supported by a preliminary cost analysis by the Director of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE).
Currently, section 2306b(i)(2)(B) of title 10, United
States Code, requires preliminary findings of the agency head
to be made after the completion of a cost analysis performed by
the Director of CAPE.
The intent of this provision is to streamline the multiyear
procurement contract legislative proposal process through the
Director of CAPE and the agency head's conducting cost analysis
simultaneously, rather than sequentially, to enable timely
submission and ample consideration of such legislative
proposals by the congressional defense committees.
Inclusion of best available information regarding past performance of
subcontractors and joint venture partners (sec. 816)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council and the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, to develop policies for the Department
of Defense (DOD) to ensure the best information regarding past
performance of certain subcontractors and joint venture
partners is available when awarding DOD contracts.
Modification of criteria for waivers of requirement for certified cost
and price data (sec. 817)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical change to section 817 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314; 10 U.S.C 2306a note).
Subcontracting price and approved purchasing systems (sec. 818)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 893 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to clarify that,
for Department of Defense contracts with contractors that have
approved purchasing systems as defined by section 44.101 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulations, a contracting officer must
have a written approval from his or her program manager prior
to withholding consent based solely on disagreement with the
proposed subcontract price.

Comptroller General of the United States report on progress payment
financing of Department of Defense contracts (sec. 819)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, no
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, to the congressional defense committees on the results of
an analysis of the effects of current financing levels of
defense contracts on defense contractors and Defense budgets.

Authorization to limit foreign access to technology through contracts
(sec. 820)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
include in the terms of any contract provisions that would
limit access by select persons or organizations to sensitive
technology, and authorize the potential forfeit of intellectual
property rights if these terms were violated.

Briefing requirement on services contracts (sec. 821)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to
brief the congressional defense committees no later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180
days thereafter, on the progress of Department of Defense
efforts to meet the requirements of section 23239(b) of title
10, United States Code, including relevant information on the
methodology and implementation plans for future compliance.

Sense of Congress on awarding of contracts to responsible companies
that primarily employ American workers and do not actively
transfer American jobs to potential adversaries (sec. 822)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should award
contracts to responsible companies that primarily employ United
States workers or are partners in the national technology and
industrial base and do not actively transfer United States jobs
to potential adversaries.

Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Program cost, fielding, and performance goals in planning major
acquisition programs (sec. 831)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2448a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the designated milestone decision authority is the individual
responsible for ensuring the accomplishment of the stated goals
for a major defense acquisition program.

Implementation of recommendations of the Independent Study on
Consideration of Sustainment in Weapons Systems Life Cycle
(sec. 832)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to implement certain recommendations from
the Independent Study on Consideration of Sustainment in Weapon
Systems Life Cycle, which was conducted as required by section
844 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328).
The report's findings highlight that the Department of
Defense has not given proper consideration to sustainment
issues during the development and acquisition process. In
particular, the report found that specific issues related to
technical data rights and intellectual property were not
properly considered during development and acquisition for
certain programs and types of programs. Furthermore, the report
observed that once systems are in sustainment, the non-
consideration of these issues limits the ability of the
Department to effectively modernize systems.
The committee believes that it is critically important to
consider the findings and recommendations of this report.

Pilot program to accelerate major weapons system programs (sec. 833)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
pilot program for the Secretary of Defense to reform and
accelerate the contracting and pricing processes associated
with major weapons systems programs through basing price
reasonableness determinations on actual cost and pricing data
for purchases of the same or similar products for the
Department of Defense and reducing the cost and pricing data to
be submitted in accordance with section 2306a of title 10,
United States Code. This authority would expire on January 2,
2021.
The committee remains concerned with the continued
challenges of cost overruns and long delays in acquiring major
weapons system programs, many of which are caused by the overly
bureaucratic way in which the Department of Defense does
business. This provision would allow the Secretary of Defense
to explore, through a pilot program, alternative ways to
transform the Department's business model to solve the
recurring problem of obtaining the correct information in a
timely manner to expedite negotiations and deliver major
weapons systems on time and within budget.

Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce

Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to acquisition
personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 841)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1762 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a
permanent authority for personnel programs for employees in the
Department of Defense civilian acquisition workforce and
supporting personnel assigned to work directly with that
workforce.

Establishment of integrated review team on defense acquisition
industry-government exchange (sec. 842)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Chairman of the Defense Business Board to convene an integrated
review team with members of the Defense Innovation Board and
Defense Science Board to undertake a study on the exchange of
defense industry personnel on term assignments within the
Department. The study shall review: (1) Legal, ethical, and
financial disclosure requirements for industry-government
exchanges; (2) Existing or previous industry-government
exchange programs; and (3) How the military departments address
legal, ethical, and financial requirements for reserve
component servicemembers who also maintain civilian employment
in the defense industry. The team shall also produce
recommendations to reduce barriers to industry-government
exchange while ensuring financial and ethical integrity to
protect the best interests of the Department.
The committee is aware of benefits garnered from the
exchange of government employees with private industry and
academia. However, the committee is aware that private sector
employees may face barriers to participating in exchange
programs with the Department of Defense. The committee believes
that reciprocal exchanges provide value for both parties and
encourage the flow of ideas and best practices.

Exchange program for acquisition workforce employees (sec. 843)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish an exchange program that
would temporarily assign civilian personnel working in the
defense acquisition workforce, as defined by chapter 87 of
title 10, United States Code, to a rotational program that
would broaden the skills and expertise of participants and
improve communication within and integration of the acquisition
community.
The committee notes that section 1723 of title 10, United
States Code, directs the Secretary of Defense to encourage the
acquisition workforce's self-development and develop key work
experiences for the acquisition workforce. The committee
believes that the exchange program authorized in this provision
would support the Department of Defense's ongoing efforts to
enhance the acquisition workforce and improve acquisition
outcomes.

Subtitle E--Provisions Relating to Commercial Items

Report on commercial item procurement reform (sec. 851)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to conduct a
review no later than March 1, 2020 of commercial item
procurement reform, including recommendations by the
independent panel created by Section 809 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) (Section 809 Panel) and provisions from recent National
Defense Authorization Acts, and an analysis of the treatment of
commercial services contracts as compared to commercial
products. The Assistant Secretary shall provide an interim
briefing on the methodology, goals, expected timeline for
completion, and composition of the team conducting the review
to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
The committee remains committed to pursuing ongoing reforms
to commercial item procurement including through implementation
of recommendations from the Section 809 Panel, among other
entities. The committee is encouraged by the discussion of this
important topic. However, the committee believes that
Department of Defense leadership should be engaged in this
discussion.

Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters

National technology and industrial base application process (sec. 861)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
process for consideration of products to be included within the
scope of the National Technology and Industrial Base. The
committee believes that this process will allow decision makers
to take a more strategic and comprehensive view and apply
rigorous military requirements and economic-based analysis to
the maintenance of robust and critical manufacturing
capabilities for the Department of Defense.

Report on defense electronics industrial base (sec. 862)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report by the Secretary of Defense, no later than January 31,
2019, that would examine the health of the defense electronics
industrial base both domestically and within the national
technology and industrial base. The committee remains concerned
about the erosion of the domestic electronics supply chain, and
encourages the Department to leverage existing resources,
including the Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board and
Interconnect Technology, to ensure the availability and
integrity of military electronics. To that end, the committee
supports broadening the Department's microelectronics
initiatives to include the broader electronics industrial base
in order to more comprehensively address gaps across the
electronics supply chain.

Support for defense manufacturing communities to support the defense
industrial base (sec. 863)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with authority to establish a program to
make long-term investments in critical skills, infrastructure,
research and development, and small business support in order
to strengthen the national security innovation base, working in
coordination with the defense manufacturing institutes.

Subtitle G--Other Transactions

Change to notification requirement for other transactions (sec. 871)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
congressional notification requirements for the use of Other
Transactions.

Data and policy on the use of other transactions (sec. 872)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and
the Service Acquisition Executives of the military departments
to collect data on the use of other transactions. The data
should be stored in a manner that affords to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition access at any time. The
provision would also require the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition to analyze and leverage these data to update
policy and guidance related to the use of other transactions.

Subtitle H--Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive and
Digital Products and Services

Clarifications regarding proprietary and technical data (sec. 881)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2321(f) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
application of rights in technical data relating to major
weapons systems. This provision would also amend section 2320
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the application of
licensing of appropriate intellectual property to support major
weapons systems with regard to preferences for specially
negotiated licenses.
The committee notes that both government and industry
stakeholders continue to express concern over conflicting legal
interpretations based on changes to rights in technical data
made by section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and changes to rights
in proprietary data made by section 835 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).
Therefore, the committee recommends a return to previous law
and encourages the Department of Defense to give clear guidance
on the use of technical data and intellectual property in
support of major weapons systems in conjunction with the
recommendations provided by the government-industry advisory
panel created by section 813 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).

Implementation of recommendations of the final report of the Defense
Science Board Task Force on the Design and Acquisition of
Software for Defense Systems (sec. 882)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to implement certain recommendations of
the Defense Science Board Task Force in their report on the
Design and Acquisition of Software for Defense Systems.
The report contained seven recommendations on how to
improve software acquisition in defense systems, to include the
idea of the software factory, which underpins all other actions
the Department of Defense might take in this area. The
committee agrees with the report's emphasis on shifting the
Department of Defense's treatment of software as solely a
development activity to understanding that it is enduring and
that, therefore, traditional models of hardware sustainment are
not suited to the treatment of software in the acquisition
process. Further recommendations pertained to iterative
development, how to incorporate metrics in program management
for software, risk reduction activities, the role of machine
learning and autonomy in programs, and necessary competency
within the acquisition workforce.
The committee believes that it is critically important to
consider the findings and recommendations of this report.

Implementation of pilot program to use agile or iterative development
methods under section 873 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (sec. 883)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide
additional direction to the Secretary of Defense in
implementing the pilot program established under section 873 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91).
The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
has established the pilot program as directed under section
873. However, the committee is disappointed that, despite being
directed to identify four major software-intensive warfighting
systems and between four to eight defense business systems,
only one system has been identified for realignment.
Accordingly, the committee is selecting the systems and
directing the Secretary of Defense to consider them as
candidates in accordance with section 873.
The committee notes that some of the systems have recently
begun transition to agile methods or have committed to doing so
and, as such, their inclusion in the pilot program will allow
the Department of Defense to use lessons learned for other
systems that have not yet started realignment under the pilot
program.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends funding
reductions for several of the systems, with the expectation
that cost savings will result from realignments under the
pilot.

Enabling and other activities of the Cloud Executive Steering Group
(sec. 884)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Cloud Executive Steering Group (CESG) to conduct certain
activities to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to
continue its efforts to transition its data, systems, and
applications to commercial cloud environments.
The committee notes the important role that the CESG has in
supporting efforts to make optimal use of cloud computing
technologies and services across the DOD. The committee
encourages the active engagement of the members, to continue to
ensure that cloud technologies are technically suitable,
appropriately tested for security and reliability, and
integrated with other DOD information technology efforts, so as
to optimize effective and efficient procurement of such
technologies and services and their performance in support of
DOD missions.
The committee notes that the CESG's activities have been
focused on the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure
initiative and that much attention has been paid to whether the
DOD will make a single award or multiple awards following the
competition for this contract for commercial cloud services.
The committee is concerned that this focus has displaced
necessary attention that would otherwise be paid to key
enablers and preconditions for commercial cloud services, such
as establishing modern commercial networks and conducting
workload analysis.
The committee emphasizes the importance, to the DOD's cloud
transition and enterprise efficiency goals, of modernizing
networks by adopting advanced commercial capabilities. Network
modernization is essential for cybersecurity, supporting
service-level agreements for cloud services, ensuring efficient
cloud access, and consolidating networks.
The committee notes that workload and migration analysis
are critical to understanding feasibility and costs associated
with the use of commercial cloud services. Workload analysis
will reveal that some workloads performed by the DOD's systems
and applications face significant barriers to migration due to
technical, intellectual property, and data rights issues whose
scope and implications are not yet understood. Such barriers
have the potential to fundamentally limit the potential utility
of commercial cloud services to the Department.
Further, the committee believes that such enabling
activities must inform the Department's decision as to whether
a single or multiple award is in the best interest of the
government, as is required under federal acquisition
regulation.

Subtitle I--Other Matters

Prohibition on certain telecommunications services or equipment (sec.
891)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense's procurement of telecommunications
equipment or services from Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE
Corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, or
any entity controlled by the government of the People's
Republic of China. The provision would also prohibit entry into
a contract with any entity that uses equipment, as a critical
component of any system, from Huawei Technologies Company, the
ZTE Corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities,
or any entity controlled by the government of the People's
Republic of China.

Limitation on use of funds pending submittal of report on Army
Marketing and Advertising Program (sec. 892)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report on the recommendations
contained in the Army Audit Agency of the Army's Marketing and
Advertising Program. The report would include: (1) Mitigation
and oversight measures to improve contract management; (2) The
establishment of a review process to evaluate the effectiveness
of marketing efforts; (3) The increase of acquisition and
marketing experience within the Army Marketing and Research
Group (AMRG); (4) An analysis of the workforces within AMRG;
(5) The establishment of an Army Marketing and Advisory Board;
and (6) The status on the implementation of new contracting
practices recommended by the Army Audit Agency.
Additionally, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of
the Army from obligating 50 percent of funds available for the
AMRG in fiscal year 2019 until the report is submitted to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives.

Permanent SBIR and STTR authority for the Department of Defense (sec.
893)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 638 of title 15, United States Code, to provide a
permanent authority for the Small Business Innovation Research
program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer
program (STTR) in the Department of Defense.

Procurement of telecommunications supplies for experimental purposes
(sec. 894)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2373 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to buy
telecommunications supplies for experimental or test purposes.

Access by developmental and operational testing activities to data
regarding modeling and simulation activity (sec. 895)

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and other
developmental testing organizations be given access to all data
associated with certain modeling and simulation activities
supporting the acquisition of military capabilities.

Items of Special Interest

Analysis of technical and security issues in Department of Defense
business systems

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
faces many challenges in maintaining modern business systems to
support critical defense missions and activities. The committee
further notes that Secretary Mattis has made Defense business
reform a key tenet of his management agenda. The committee is
concerned that there may be real or perceived technical or
security issues associated with moving away from large
enterprise scale business systems and moving to smaller
systems, including those that can better leverage commercial or
government cloud computing services.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to initiate an independent technical analysis of technical and
security barriers to incorporating more modern information
technology in business systems. The analysis should document
case studies and lessons learned from government applications
that already have used and operated with modern information
technology development practices, standards, and services, as
well as to determine the feasibility of using these practices,
standards, and services for new capabilities or new starts for
DOD business systems. The committee notes that, to optimize
both cost and performance of these systems, experts have
identified attributes for system suitability and quality,
including changeability, stability, scalability, testability,
effectiveness, security, documentation, developer base, and
ease of installation. The committee believes that analysis of
DOD's ability to produce systems with these kinds of attributes
should be a key element of this analytic effort. The committee
directs that this analysis should be delivered to the
congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act.

Assessment of Superior Supplier Incentive Programs

The committee observes that the Department of Defense has
undertaken various efforts to identify and reward high
performing contractors, to include a Preferred Supplier Program
and the recent direction to the Military Departments to
implement Superior Supplier Incentive Programs. Not later than
March 1, 2019, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with
the Service Acquisition Executives of the military departments,
to assess the implementation of such programs in achieving
their original objectives.

Incorporation of agile methods for testing in prototyping and
streamlined fielding initiatives

The committee notes the Department of Defense has taken
seriously the acceleration of development and deployment of
capabilities to the warfighter, which the committee believes
are needed to keep up with rapidly changing technologies and
threats. The committee is encouraged that such efforts are
drawing inspiration from the successful private sector use of
agile acquisition and other iterative development methods that
are connecting development and operations, often referred to as
``DevOps,'' especially for software systems.
One key tenet of these successful programs is the ability
to deliver functioning, viable products to market so as to
satisfy the needs of customers, whether they are commercial or
military. This ability is based on the robust and practically
continuous testing of systems as part of development, so as to
discover and address technical and operational issues within
the development cycle and with minimal cost.
The committee is concerned that an emphasis on rapid
fielding without such explicit consideration of testing may
result in deployment of systems that are not effective, secure,
scalable, or interoperable and that the Department of Defense's
efforts to date have not yet included appropriate mechanisms to
involve the testing community. The committee directs the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to jointly ensure that
policies, procedures, and guidance reflect early involvement
and integration of the test community into these accelerated
development and fielding efforts, including mechanisms to make
test and evaluation resources available as soon as initiatives
are started in order to field rapidly.
The committee directs that this activity be conducted in
conjunction with the rapid capabilities office, the Services,
the Strategic Capabilities Office, and organizations tasked
with similar prototyping efforts.

Master plan for organic industrial base infrastructure

The committee notes the importance of the organic defense
industrial base in restoring and maintaining readiness for the
military services. The committee further notes that
sequestration coupled with multiple years of continuing
resolutions has required the Department to take risk in a
multitude of mission essential areas to include facilities
infrastructure. The committee is concerned that the Department
does not have a facilities infrastructure master plan for its
depots, air logistics centers, and fleet readiness centers
similar to the congressionally mandated Navy Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Plan as well as the Long-Range
Facilities and Construction Planning at Army Ammunition Plants
and Arsenals.
The committee notes that the 20-year plan the Navy has
developed for its public shipyards improves not only its
equipment and facilities, but also the overall layout and
configuration of its facilities and equipment leading to
reduced man days and cost. Furthermore, the Navy states that it
will be able to conduct additional maintenance leading to
higher readiness rates once projects are completed on a rolling
basis. At this time, the committee believes that existing
organic facilities may not be ideally designed, placed, sized,
or configured to support the current work processes, leading to
inefficiencies. The committee believes that such a plan for the
other organic facilities would not only reduce costs and
maintenance backlog but lead to higher readiness rates across
the services and provide a better strategy for future planning.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, in
consultation with their respective service chiefs, to submit
individual service reports by February 1, 2019, on an
engineering master plan for the optimal placement and
consolidation of facilities and major equipment to support
depot level repair functions of its government-owned and
government-operated facilities and an investment strategy to
address the facilities, major equipment, and infrastructure
requirements at organic facilities under the jurisdiction of
the respective service. The report shall include, but not be
limited to, the following elements: (1) A review of current and
projected workload requirements to assess efficiencies in the
use of existing facilities including consideration of new
weapon system characteristics, obsolescence of facilities,
siting of facilities and equipment, and various constrained
process flows; (2) An analysis of life-cycle costs to repair
and modernize existing mission-essential facilities versus the
cost to consolidate functions into modern, right-sized
waterfront facilities to meet current and programmed future
mission requirements; (3) A master plan for each facility
incorporating the results of a review of industrial processes,
logistics streams and workload distribution; and (4) An updated
investment strategy planned for each public facility, including
timelines to complete the master plan for each facility, a list
of projects and brief scopes of work, and cost estimates
necessary to complete projects for mission essential
facilities.

Serviceability and control of technical data

The committee is concerned about issues presented by
machine learning technology relating to U.S. government and
vendor ownership, use rights, documentation, and
transportability of data, algorithms, and derivative technical
data, such as models and other outputs created in the
performance of machine learning services under a contract or
other agreement, excluding the vendor's preexisting algorithm
in its original state, prior to its evolution based on
processing of the government's data and exposure to the
government's business processes. The issue of ownership and use
rights extends to the vendor's future sales and applications of
algorithms and models that were matured and derived from
government data, especially where applications involve national
security. The Department of Defense has a strong interest in
obtaining government purpose rights for machine learning
technology developed through government processes with
government money, especially when there are national security
reasons for the government to protect this technical data for
government use and for the government to track where and if it
is being used outside of the government in the future.
The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of these issues and develop
policies and guidance for the Department. The committee urges
the Deputy Secretary to use the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-
Functional Team, the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center that
the Department recently announced it would create, the Defense
Innovation Board, and the expertise of the Defense Science
Board and the Defense Digital Service to assist in the
development of policy and guidance.
The committee directs the Deputy Secretary to complete the
assessment and provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days of the date of enactment of this
Act, and to notify the committees when policies and guidance
are issued.

Use of Federal Aviation Administration approval for Department of
Defense commercial derivative aircraft

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has long operated products that are identical to those in civil
use, including aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers.
These commercial derivative products have been certified by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has an effective
system for approving parts, repairs, and alterations. The FAA's
existing certification process allows the DOD to maintain its
commercial derivative fleet without duplicative review or
approval. The committee believes leveraging existing FAA
certifications can provide the DOD cost and schedule
efficiencies that should be pursued to the greatest extent
practicable.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department to prioritize
the use of non-developmental and commercially available items
with existing FAA certifications as long as the use of those
products do not compromise safety or security requirements
established by the Department of Defense.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

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

Powers and duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering in connection with priority emerging technologies
(sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD
(R&E)) the authority to direct the military departments and
other elements of the Department of Defense with regard to four
priority emerging technologies-hypersonics, directed energy,
space satellite architectures, and artificial intelligence.
This authority will be limited to one year and require renewal
by the relevant congressional defense committees.
The committee recognizes the central importance of the USD
(R&E) for achieving the technological superiority referenced
within the National Defense Strategy and chose these specific
technologies based on their paramount importance to the future
fight. The provision would include a limitation on this
authority in order to ensure its usage is consistent with the
committee's intent. The committee urges coordination between
the USD (R&E) and the military departments, instead of the
usage of this authority, as the first resort for decisions
about the development of these technologies.
Redesignation and modification of responsibilities of Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 136 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel. This provision would
also make the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel the
Chief Human Capital Officer for the Department of Defense.
The committee notes that over half of the annual defense
budget goes toward human capital in the form of military,
civilian, and contracted personnel. Yet despite its importance,
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness continues to be subject to instability caused by
rapid turnover of senior leaders and lack of a consistent
mission. This committee continues to hear constant frustration
from Department of Defense senior leaders that there is a great
lack of strategic workforce planning within the Department,
which results in there being no coherent consolidation of
hiring policies and no guidance on pathways to expedite hiring,
management, or movement of the Department's workforce in order
to assist the Department in getting its most valuable
resources, its people, on board and in the right positions to
best help with the rapidly evolving mission of the Department.
The Under Secretary for Personnel should be the Chief Human
Capital Officer and the responsible official on these issues
vital to the success of the Defense workforce.
Additionally, while a senior civilian official in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense must have responsibility for
readiness policy and oversight, this Under Secretary is not in
the optimal position to do so. The committee notes that neither
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, nor
any of that official's subordinate leaders has been sought to
testify on readiness in the numerous hearings that the
congressional defense committees have held in recent years in
their prioritization of military readiness recovery. The
committee believes that readiness is a strategic issue that is
better addressed by civilian officials who have responsibility
for defense strategy, plans, and force development. Elsewhere
in this legislation, the committee recommends a provision that
realigns responsibility for readiness within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to improve and enhance oversight of this
critical issue. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense
to determine what activities, such as training policies, force
education, and language instruction, which are currently
addressed as readiness issues but would be better addressed as
personnel issues for which responsibility should be retained by
this Under Secretary.
This provision would ensure that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel is clearly focused on his primary
responsibility, managing the Department's human resources.
Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
would be tasked with serving as the Department's Chief Human
Capital Officer, responsible for setting workforce development
strategy and aligning the Department's human resources
policies, healthcare policies, and programs with the
Department's mission, strategic goals, and performance
outcomes. The committee expects that this role will not be
delegated to a lower level.
Further, the committee notes that section 907 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-404) reduced the total number of authorized Assistant
Secretaries of Defense from 14 to 13, and eliminated specific
titles for all but three. This change in law allows the
Secretary of Defense more discretion to make effective use of
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense within the Department. The
committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Readiness, a position that since creation has not been filled
by a Senate-confirmed nominee, is a position that may be best
suited for another Under Secretariat in the Department.
Alternatively, the Assistant Secretary position within the
Personnel Under Secretariat should be repurposed to better
serve the primary functions of that office by focusing on
strategic workforce planning, eliminating egregious hiring lag
times, and developing and implementing flexible workforce
authorities to better enable the Department of Defense to
recruit and retain the talent it needs for a complex mission.
Modification of responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
to express clearly that the primary duties of this senior
official are the development of defense strategy and the
translation of that strategy into detailed policy guidance for
force development, operational planning, defense posture, joint
force assessment, and readiness.
The committee notes that the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy has become increasingly consumed by
specific activities--such as interagency meetings, foreign
travel, and regional issues--at the expense of higher priority
functions, first among which is ensuring that the strategic and
operational requirements for the joint force, both present and
future, are sufficiently addressed and funded in the Department
of Defense's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
process. This is an indispensable role for which no other
senior civilian below the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of
Defense is responsible. In this way, it is the Under
Secretary's unique duty to advise and assist the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary of Defense in developing detailed policy
guidance to direct and assess the development of the joint
force, the employment and posture of the force, and the
associated readiness requirements to execute the priorities of
the National Defense Strategy, while providing the Secretary
and Deputy Secretary of Defense with high-quality advice, based
on rigorous strategic assessments, to inform their decisions on
how to allocate resources to shape the joint force.
The committee acknowledges that, to date, the statutory
duties of the Under Secretary have been vaguely defined. The
committee seeks to redress that oversight by clearly
establishing in statute, through this provision, what it sees
as the most important responsibilities of the Under Secretary
and the criteria the committee will prioritize in evaluating
the background, experience, and qualifications of nominees for
this position in order to execute its advise and consent
duties.
Report on allocation of former responsibilities of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec.
904)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to report on decisions taken as part of
the reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to allocate
the responsibilities that are referenced in United States Code.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, Assessments,
Readiness, and Capabilities (sec. 905)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Strategy, Plans, Assessments, Readiness, and
Capabilities effective as of February 1, 2019.
One of the committee's highest priorities in recent years
has been improving the ability of the Department of Defense to
develop and implement strategy. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
replaced the Quadrennial Defense Review with a framework for a
more focused, coherent, and prioritized National Defense
Strategy. The committee applauds the Secretary of Defense's
efforts in crafting the National Defense Strategy, which
clearly addresses our eroding military advantage, prioritizes
the threats posed by great power competitors, and acknowledges
that the current joint force must change to meet those threats.
However, the committee recognizes that the ultimate success
of the National Defense Strategy will depend on implementation
guided by strong civilian leadership in the Department of
Defense determined to make the difficult choices that are
required to align policies, authorities, organizations,
requirements, and investments with the National Defense
Strategy, informed by a realistic assessment of available
resources.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has
long been responsible for developing strategy and providing
associated policy guidance for force development, operational
planning, and defense posture. However, the committee has grown
concerned that these policy functions have atrophied over many
years and do not always receive sufficient attention from
senior policy leaders. One such function that has become
particularly moribund is the performance of detailed joint
force assessments at the campaign, operational, and mission
levels that are essential for better defining the capability,
posture, planning, and readiness requirements that are needed
to execute the National Defense Strategy. This is a different
function than that performed by the Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation, which is largely focused more narrowly
on evaluating service program and budget requests.
Similarly, the committee believes that responsibility for
readiness policy and oversight is currently misaligned in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, where it is viewed as a
personnel matter under the purview of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, rather than as a strategic
matter, focused on the proverbial question of ``ready for
what?'' and addressed together with related operational issues,
such as force planning. The committee believes that these
organizational problems help to explain why joint force
readiness and modernization have both experienced mounting
crises, despite sufficient warning of growing external threats
and internal shortcomings.
In recommending this provision, the committee seeks to
ensure that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense are
better supported on matters of defense strategy, force
planning, and readiness. This provision would align the
critical functions necessary to exert strong civilian
leadership in the development of defense strategy and its
translation into detailed policy to guide investments in
necessary capabilities, readiness, and posture for the future
joint force. Many of these functions are currently assigned to
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and
Capabilities in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy. This provision would add to these functions
strategic readiness responsibilities, a renewed emphasis on
producing rigorous joint force assessments, and any additional
policy and oversight duties for strategic capabilities, as
determined by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
In reallocating responsibility for readiness in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the committee is assigning to the
Assistant Secretary responsibility for readiness as a strategic
matter, currently lacking in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense: namely, the production of detailed policy guidance to
define the strategic, campaign, and operational objectives that
the joint force must be ready to achieve, the implementation of
the National Defense Strategy and associated campaign and
contingency planning guidance, and the formulation of criteria
that would be used to assess whether the joint force is, in
fact, ready to achieve these results. As part of these duties,
this Assistant Secretary would be responsible for conducting
rigorous assessments of joint force performance through
modeling and simulations, such as war games, and the
observation of service and joint exercises.
The Assistant Secretary's unique responsibility in matters
of readiness is defining and assessing readiness ``outcomes,''
not measuring or collating readiness ``inputs.'' The committee
believes that the latter function is of limited utility without
the former and should be performed by other civilian officials
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Many of those
duties, such as training policies, force education, and
language instruction, are more accurately viewed as personnel
matters and should be handled as such. Similarly, the committee
believes that the Assistant Secretary should not be responsible
for collating readiness reporting data and related functions
that attempt to measure inputs that generate readiness. The
committee views functions such as these as subordinate to the
strategic matters of defining ``readiness for what?'' and
expects the Secretary of Defense to realign these subordinate
functions, as well as responsibility for them, based on the
policy guidance that the Assistant Secretary produces on behalf
of the Secretary to implement the National Defense Strategy.
The committee strongly believes that the responsibility for
strategy, plans, assessments, readiness, and capabilities are
best performed within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, considering the critical linkages they
share with the regional and functional defense policy issues
for which the Under Secretary is also responsible. However, if
these so-called ``outside the building'' duties continue to
take precedence over the so-called ``inside the building''
duties detailed in this provision, the committee will seriously
reevaluate whether the functions being assigned to this
Assistant Secretary of Defense should instead be removed from
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and
vested in a senior official who reports directly to the
Secretary of Defense.
Clarification of responsibilities and duties of the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 906)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
responsibilities and duties of the Chief Information Officer
(CIO) of the Department of Defense by specifically delineating
its authorities from those assigned to the Chief Management
Officer (CMO) in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).
Section 910 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) designated the CMO as the
CIO of the Department for the purposes of Defense business
systems (10 U.S.C. 2222). The provision assigned the CMO the
responsibility of administering the duties and responsibilities
specified in sections 11315 and 11319 of title 40, section
3506(a)(2) of title 44, and section 2223(a) of title 10 for
business systems and management. The provision also assigned
the CMO with any responsibilities, duties, and powers relating
to business systems or management that are exercisable by a
chief information officer for the Department, other than those
responsibilities, duties, and powers of a chief information
officer that are vested in the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Defense by section 142 of title 10, United States
Code.
Specification of certain duties of the Defense Technical Information
Center (sec. 907)
The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
duties of the Defense Technical Information Center to include
execution of the Global Research Watch program and the
development and maintenance of datasets and data repositories
on research and engineering activities. The provision also
requires a plan for the assumption of these duties.
Limitation on termination of, and transfer of functions,
responsibilities, and activities of, the Strategic Capabilities
Office (sec. 908)
The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
the ability of the Secretary of Defense to terminate or
transfer the functions of the Strategic Capabilities Office
(SCO) until specific conditions are met and certified to the
congressional defense committees. These conditions include a
certification that the key functions of SCO will be preserved
and a plan to replicate these functions elsewhere. The plan
would also require a justification if the entity or transferred
functions were to be managed outside of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
Technical corrections to Department of Defense Test Resource Management
Center authority (sec. 909)
The committee recommends a provision that would align the
reporting relationship of the Test Resource Management Center
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
as a conforming change reflecting the disestablishment of the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.

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

Modification of certain responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff relating to joint force concept development
(sec. 921)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in developing
joint capabilities. The provision would require the Chairman to
expand concept development efforts to include short term
challenges that could be addressed by joint concepts, as well
as the long term issues the Joint Staff has traditionally
considered.
The committee recognizes that not all capability gaps can,
or should, be addressed by procurement or additional end-
strength. Some challenges are best met through concept
development efforts-especially joint concept development
efforts where the capabilities of different Services are
brought together to solve an operational challenge.
The committee also recommends the Joint Staff focus on
identifying current capability gaps that prevent the joint
force from achieving the objectives of the National Defense
Strategy and determining which of these gaps could potentially
be addressed by new concepts utilizing existing joint force
capabilities. The Joint Staff should also ensure that these new
joint concepts are tested, assessed, and, if appropriate,
fielded to support the joint force.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict review of United States Special Operations Command
(sec. 922)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC), in coordination with the
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), to conduct
a comprehensive review of SOCOM for the purpose of ensuring
that the institutional and operational capabilities of special
operations forces (SOF) are appropriate to counter future
threats across the spectrum of conflict.
The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy re-
orients the way the Department of Defense is to prioritize its
efforts in an increasingly complex and dangerous global
security environment. A rising People's Republic of China and
an increasingly belligerent Russian Federation are now the
Department's top strategic priorities, while the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
and countering violent extremism remain enduring lines of
effort.
Over the last 16-plus years, SOCOM has largely focused its
efforts on executing operations in support of the global
countering violent extremism effort. As a result, SOCOM's
organization, training, tactics, techniques, procedures, and
the development and acquisition of capabilities has prioritized
this mission set. While countering violent extremism will
remain a persistent mission for SOF, the severity of the threat
posed by China, Russia, and other adversarial states across the
spectrum of conflict and the release of the National Defense
Strategy represent an inflection point for the future of SOF.
As such, the committee believes that the ASD SOLIC,
consistent with his responsibilities under section 138 of title
10, United States Code, to ``exercise authority, direction, and
control of all special-operations peculiar administrative
matters relating to the organization, training, and equipping
of special operations forces,'' should use the review required
by this section as an opportunity to conduct a baseline
assessment of the SOF enterprise and provide a strategic vision
for the future of the force in order to ensure it remains a
relevant and lethal component of the joint force to counter
emerging and future threats facing the Nation.
Qualifications for appointment as Deputy Chief Management Officer of a
military department (sec. 923)
The committee recommends a provision that would create
qualification criteria for military department Deputy Chief
Management Officers to include either significant experience in
business operations and management in the public sector or
significant experience managing an enterprise in the private
sector.
The committee urges this change in accordance with the
qualification requirements instituted for the Department of
Defense Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and as part of the
committee's broader focus on ensuring attention to management
expertise across the Department of Defense.

Expansion of principal duties of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition (sec. 924)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand
principal duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition to include sustainment,
including maintenance, of weapons systems.

Cross-functional teams in the Department of Defense (sec. 925)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish three cross-functional teams
as directed in section 911 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
These teams will focus, respectively, on electronic warfare,
personnel security, and the lethality of close-combat units.
The provision also would require the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to establish or designate an office as the Office of
Primary Responsibility for implementing section 911.
Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) provided for the adoption
of cross-functional teams (CFTs), an innovative management tool
aimed at enabling the Secretary of Defense to better integrate
across the functional silos of the Department of Defense to
address the most complex challenges.
The intent of this legislation was to provide a powerful
tool of small teams of experts reporting regularly and directly
to the Secretary that could directly shape creative solutions
to pressing challenges the Department faces. CFTs have been
thoroughly studied in academia, and are widely employed in the
private sector, where they are used to integrate diverse
capabilities in pursuit of solutions to a cross-cutting
problem. Within the Department, these teams would bring
together the expertise that resides in the functional
organizations but would not be burdened by the parochial
interests and agendas of these separate bureaucratic
stovepipes. These CFTs would be able to avoid the consensus-
seeking, lowest-common-denominator behavior that traditionally
plagues the working groups, integrated product teams, and
committees that the Department routinely forms to address
cross-cutting issues. These CFTs would be uniquely capable of
implementing the solutions to these issues, based on their
ability to wield limited executive authority delegated directly
by the Secretary to ensure compliance and effective execution
of approved plans.
The committee's vision was that CFTs would foster jointness
between the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint
Staff, the Services, and the combatant commands the way that
the Goldwater-Nichols Act instilled jointness among the
military Services and the combatant commands in the operational
sphere. Achieving collaborative processes and culture and an
integrated mission focus within the Department has been a goal
of the committee since the time that the Goldwater-Nichols Act
was conceived.
However, the committee is increasingly concerned that the
Department is lagging in its implementation of the legislation.
According to a review published by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) on February 28, 2018, titled ``DOD
Needs to Take Additional Actions to Promote Department-Wide
Collaboration'' (GAO-18-194), the Department has established
only one CFT and has not released its guidance for CFTs or
provided CFT training to appointees, among other elements
required by statute to be completed last year. The Department
has missed additional reporting and compliance deadlines also
enumerated in the GAO report. Finally, the Department has not
implemented recommendations from the study on best practices
for CFTs that it commissioned earlier this year, including
designating an office of primary responsibility or studying
potential inclusion of service on CFTs as a condition for
promotion.
The committee appreciates the magnitude of change that the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) mandated for the Department but continues to
believe in the importance of promoting the cultural change
enabled by CFTs across the Department. Only by integrating
diverse expertise will the Department be able to meet its most
pressing challenges. Therefore, the committee is directing that
electronic warfare, personnel security, and close combat
lethality be managed by CFTs, because of their high priority
for the Department, and the complex, multi-functional nature of
each program.
The committee remains concerned that electronic warfare is
a warfighting area where the Nation's peer adversaries, such as
China and Russia, are establishing asymmetric advantages over
U.S. forces. The Defense Science Board identified numerous
vulnerabilities in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment,
and the Department attempted to address these in the June 2017
Department of Defense Electronic Warfare Strategy. However, the
Department continues to approach the electronic warfare mission
area and electromagnetic spectrum operations in an
uncoordinated and insufficient manner that risks lagging
further behind adversary efforts. A separate provision
addresses the need for a designated senior official and this
cross-functional team to address this growing challenge with a
road-map that includes: a review of the vulnerabilities
identified in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment; an
assessment of the capability of U.S. forces to conduct joint
electromagnetic spectrum operations against near-peer
adversaries; and a description of actions, performance metrics,
and projected timelines for achieving key capabilities for
electronic warfare and joint electromagnetic spectrum
operations. The road-map would also include an analysis of any
personnel, resourcing, capability, authority, or other gaps to
be addressed in order to ensure effective implementation of the
strategy across all relevant elements of the Department. The
committee therefore believes the alignment of the electronic
warfare mission is an ideal task for a CFT. The committee
encourages the Secretary to select the most knowledgeable
individuals from the Services, the Joint Staff, U.S. Strategic
Command, and the Offices of the Under Secretaries for Policy,
Acquisition, and Sustainment, Research and Engineering, and
Personnel to work full-time on this CFT.
The committee is also committed to the success of the
Department's personnel security mission and believes that it is
another area ripe for CFT engagement. With the transfer of the
background investigation function to the Department in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91), the Department will need to conduct a review of
existing policies and procedures for background investigations,
and insider threat detection and prevention, in favor of new
technologies like continuous evaluation. The only way for this
transition to be successful is to have representation from all
elements of the Department engaged and for this group to have
significant leadership backing. Therefore, the committee
recommends this as the second area for CFT attention, with
special focus on the transfer of investigation responsibility,
the integration of the National Background Investigation
Services system into this process, and the resourcing of this
responsibility within the Department. In addition, this team
should be tasked to develop a plan to transition the remaining
workload and resources of the National Background
Investigations Bureau from the Office of Personnel Management
to the Department of Defense.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
created a ``cross-functional task force for close combat
lethality'' that bears all of the features of a cross-
functional team as defined in section 911 and in the
Department's independent study of best practices on cross-
functional teams. Given this congruity, the committee is
concerned that the Secretary did not designate this task force
as a cross-functional team for the purpose of responding to
section 911 and believes that it should be recognized and
managed as such. The committee does not believe that this
designation requires any changes in the Task Force's
organization, management, authorities, mission, or activities,
nor does it carry any implications for the duration of the Task
Force.
With respect to the substantive work of this close combat
lethality cross-functional team, the committee concurs in the
Secretary's judgment that the proliferation of technology has
eroded the comparative advantage of the United States' infantry
close combat formations. The committee agrees also that the
lethality and survivability of close combat formations is
critical given that infantry formations have historically borne
the majority of U.S. causalities in major conflicts despite
comprising less than 5% of Department of Defense personnel. In
light of the re-emergence of great power competition, it is
appropriate for the Secretary to devote special attention to
investments and reforms in infantry squad-level formations,
including in personnel policies, training methods, human
performance, and equipment. The committee is encouraged by the
initial impact and workings of the CFT.
The committee understands that the Secretary's CFT is
developing the concept of the infantry as an exceptionally
managed career field as well as the increase in cohesion,
stability and lethality resident in conceptualizing the ``squad
as a platform.'' The committee request that the Secretary
notify the committee when the CFT is prepared to provide a
briefing on the attendant policy, authorities and resources
that would be required to realize these concepts.

Deadline for completion of full implementation of requirements in
connection with organization of the Department of Defense for
management of special operations forces and special operations
(sec. 926)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
full implementation of the reforms contained in section 922 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) not later than 90 days after enactment of
this Act. The committee notes that this section included a
number of reforms designed to empower the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict
(ASD SOLIC) to act as the ``service secretary-like'' civilian
responsible for exercising ``authority, direction and control
of all special operations-peculiar administrative matters
relating to the organization, training, and equipping of
special operations forces (SOF).''
The committee further notes that section 922 established a
new administrative chain of command to facilitate the exercise
of these responsibilities that runs from Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) through the ASD SOLIC to the
Secretary of Defense, thereby mirroring the relationship
between the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries.
This reform was, in part, intended to address the fact that the
ASD SOLIC's organizational location within the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) has resulted in
the ASD SOLIC dedicating the preponderance of his time and
resources to policy and operational issues at the expense of
his ``service secretary-like'' responsibilities. The committee
understands that the Department continues to consider options
for implementing this administrative chain of command but
reiterates its intent that the ASD SOLIC is empowered to act
independent of, but in coordination with, the USD(P) in matters
related to the organization, training, and equipping of special
operations forces. This administrative chain of command is not
intended to impact the relationship between the ASD SOLIC and
USD(P) on policy matters relating to the employment of special
operations forces and related authorities.
The committee is concerned that, despite passage of Public
Law 114-328 nearly 18 months ago, the implementation of the
reforms contained in section 922 remain incomplete. According
to a report required by section 1074 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), the
Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the development of
recommendations for implementation of these reforms, but no
substantive actions have been taken since. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, beginning on July
1, 2018, and continuing on the first day of every month
thereafter until full implementation of the ASD SOLIC reforms,
to provide the congressional defense committees with monthly
progress reports on specific actions taken to institutionalize
the ASD SOLIC's role in:
(1) SOF programs and requirements, including SOCOM's
Strategic Planning Process; the Global Force Management
process; the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System; the military construction decision process; and the
process for development of campaign and posture plans;
(2) SOF acquisition, technology, and logistics enterprise,
including acquisition program management; science and
technology program management; innovation; procurement;
Services program management; logistics; materiel readiness;
depot management; agile/specialized acquisition management; and
supporting activities;
(3) The Department of Defense's budgeting processes for
special operations;
(4) SOF personnel and readiness, including management of
military and civilian personnel; readiness reporting; SOF-
peculiar initiatives (e.g., training education, warrior care);
awards and decorations; and casualty notifications;
(5) SOF special access programs, including programming and
budgeting, acquisition, security, and oversight; and
(6) Other matters including, but not limited to,
legislative affairs, public affairs, general counsel, and
inspector general-type functions.
The committee further directs that the required reports
provide benchmarks for achieving full implementation of the ASD
SOLIC reforms in each of the six areas described above and an
assessment of when each benchmark will be achieved. Elsewhere
in this Act, the committee recommends a provision related to
civilian staffing of the ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special
Operations.

Subtitle C--Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
Generally

Limitation on availability of funds for major headquarters activities
of the Department of Defense (sec. 931)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 2 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the amount
of funds available for major headquarters activities (MHA)
within the Department of Defense (DOD). Beginning in fiscal
year 2020, the provision would prohibit the DOD from spending
more than 1.6 percent of the 10-year average of the DOD budget
on MHA.
Of the funds authorized to be spent on MHA, no more than
0.4 percent of the Department's 10-year budget average shall be
available for Office of the Secretary of Defense MHA entities.
Additionally, within the total funds available for MHA, 1
percent of the 10-year average of each military department
budget shall be available for the MHA requirements of each
military department concerned.
Any remaining funds available for MHA requirements may be
distributed to any MHA organization within the Department of
Defense, with the exception of MHA organizations within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Combatant command MHA
requirements will be funded out of these remaining resources.
The committee notes that this provision aligns the DOD with
private sector best management practices. Managing overhead and
headquarters through realistic budgetary percentage targets
allows for appropriate flexibility and also ensures a
predictable distribution of resources to various MHA entities.
The budget percentage limitations included in this provision
were deliberately selected to achieve two primary objectives.
First, these percentages achieve the desired MHA reductions
originally installed by section 346 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Second, the selected percentages are realistic targets based on
historical MHA spending levels. A 10-year average of budget
levels was utilized to insulate the Department from rapid year-
to-year swings in funding.

Responsibility for policy on civilian casualty matters (sec. 932)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to designate a senior
civilian official of the Department of Defense at the level of
Assistant Secretary of Defense or above to develop, coordinate,
and oversee compliance with the policy of the Department
relating to civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military
operations. Additionally, the provision would require the
senior civilian official so designated to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report that describes the
policies developed under this section and the efforts of the
Department to implement those policies.

Additional matters in connection with background and security
investigations for Department of Defense personnel (sec. 933)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to report on the number of denials or
revocations of a security clearance that occurred separately
from a periodic reinvestigation. The provision also includes a
sense of Congress that adjudication decisions from personnel
security investigations should be communicated in a transparent
manner to ensure public trust.

Program of expedited security clearances for mission-critical positions
(sec. 934)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of National Intelligence to establish within 90 days
of enactment of this Act a program for mission-critical
positions, fulfilled by either government or contract
employees, to complete the processing of an application for a
clearance within a designated timeline.

Information sharing program for positions of trust (sec. 935)

The committee recommends a provision that requires the
Director of National Intelligence to establish within 90 days
of enactment of this Act a program to share information, to
include derogatory and suitability information, with
appropriate safeguards for privacy, between and among
government agencies and industry partners regarding individuals
applying for and in positions of trust.

Report on clearance in person concept (sec. 936)

The committee recommends a provision that requires the
Director of National Intelligence to provide, within 90 days of
enactment of this Act, a report on the requirements,
feasibility, and advisability of implementing a ``clearance in
person'' concept for maintaining access to classified
information.

Strategic Defense Fellows Program (sec. 937)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish, within 1 year of the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Strategic Defense Fellows
Program within the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide
leadership development and the commencement of a career track
toward senior leadership in the Department. The provision would
prescribe eligibility, application, selection, assignment,
term, and certain pay and benefit requirements for prospective
fellows. Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary to ensure fellows receive opportunities and support
appropriate for commencement of a career track within the DOD
that could lead to a future position of senior leadership
within the Department.
The budget request included $1.5 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN). The amount authorized to be
appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from the
budget request.

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Strategic Defense Fellows Program..................... +10.0

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Analysis of Department of Defense business management and operations
datasets to promote savings and efficiencies (sec. 941)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Chief Management Officer to develop a policy on the analysis of
Department of Defense datasets on business management and
operations and to pilot three to five of these previously non-
public datasets under that policy. These datasets would come
from business operations-related systems.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should be seeking to effectively leverage analytic methods or
techniques outside of the Federal Government in order to face
its most pressing challenges. In discharging this project, the
Secretary of Defense should exercise appropriate caution in
excising any personal information or sensitive security
information from public exposure.

Research and development to advance capabilities of the Department of
Defense in data integration and advanced analytics in
connection with personnel security (sec. 942)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to conduct research
and development efforts on continuous evaluation and personnel
security.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
(DOD), through the Defense Security Service, has been
researching continuous evaluation technologies and approaches
for some time. Though DOD is exploiting some commercial
technologies, these efforts have largely built upon government
developed tools from entities like the Defense Manpower Data
Center and Defense Personnel and Security Research Center.
These efforts have occurred under significant time pressure
given the impending transfer of responsibilities for personnel
security investigations from the National Background
Investigation Bureau to DOD and have been rightly focused on
creating minimally viable products that can quickly scale.
However, the committee urges DOD to direct some limited
additional research and development resources toward this
problem in order to leverage and incorporate leading-edge
technologies that may exist only in the commercial sector. The
committee appreciates the urgency surrounding this effort, but
believes in the critical importance of going beyond a simple
evolution of existing technology to instead seek a ``step
change'' in capability that will radically improve the
personnel security process. Access to these leading edge
capabilities will be enhanced through collaboration with the
Defense Digital Service and the Defense Innovation Board. The
Director of National Intelligence, in the role of Security
Executive Agent, should be involved in these efforts and made
aware of changes to continuous evaluation or personnel security
procedures proposed by DOD.

Items of Special Interest

Department of Defense personnel security resourcing plans and needs

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, in coordination with the Chief Management
Officer, to submit a report on the resource and workforce
requirements necessary for implementing section 925 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91). The committee seeks to understand, in particular,
the investigative capacity needs that will be required to
complete this mission. Accurate and reliable estimates of the
current contract and government capabilities that can be tapped
to execute these missions will become even more critical after
these changes. The committee is concerned that the personnel
security community has long lacked accurate estimates of
capacity which has led to increased backlogs.
Moreover, as the Department ramps up its efforts in
continuous evaluation and insider threat capabilities, the
workforce needs and skills required to complete background
investigations will shift. This shift may require increased
capacity from functions outside of traditional security, like
human resources. Therefore, the report should also include a
proposal for the Department of Defense's path forward in order
to fully tap both government and industry capacity given
advances in technology. The committee further directs the
Department to include within this report information on the use
of 1099s for federal background investigations.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence submit this report to the relevant congressional
defense committees and intelligence committees not more than
180 days after enactment of this Act.

Department of Defense security clearance responsibilities

The committee understands that the administration has
decided to transfer to the Department of Defense (DOD) the
remaining responsibilities of the Office of Personnel
Management's National Background Investigations Bureau for
conducting background investigations for non-DOD Federal
employees. Independent of this decision, the committee remains
concerned by the backlog in background investigations and re-
investigations which creates security risks for the government,
harms the government's ability to recruit high-quality
personnel, and wastes resources annually as employees are
sidelined waiting for clearances. At the same time, the
committee fully recognizes the necessity for a consistent,
reliable, judicious, and thorough investigation and
adjudication process.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to present to the appropriate committees a plan for assuming
all background investigation responsibilities for the federal
government no later than 90 days after the enactment of this
Act. The plan should explain how DOD will manage the transition
while modernizing the investigation process and reducing the
backlog. The plan should include an estimate of the time and
resources required to eliminate the backlog and any additional
authorities needed in order to carry out this mission.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic

The committee notes the strategic importance of the Arctic
continues to increase as the United States and other countries
recognize the military significance of the Arctic's sea lanes,
choke points, and its potential for power projection into
multiple regions. The committee also recognizes that the
Department of Defense's mission requirements in the Arctic are
expected to grow, as increases in human and maritime activity
bring heightened risk of maritime accidents, oil spills,
illegal fishing, and harvesting of other natural resources in
the exclusive economic zones of the United States and other
potential threats and challenges to United States sovereignty.
The committee notes that the Russian Federation has
aggressively focused on the development of Arctic capabilities
and has made significant investments in military infrastructure
in the Arctic. The committee further notes that Secretary of
Defense James Mattis has stated, ``The Arctic is key strategic
terrain. . . Russia is taking aggressive steps to increase its
presence there. . . I will prioritize the development of an
integrated strategy for the Arctic. I believe that our
interests and the security of the Arctic would benefit from
increasing the focus of the Department of Defense on this
region.''
The committee remains concerned that the current Department
of Defense jurisdiction over the Arctic region presents
operational seams between three geographic combatant commands
and two functional combatant commands: U.S. Northern Command,
U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic
Command, and U.S. Transportation Command, with U.S. European
Command holding the primary responsibility for the major
adversary in the region, U.S. Pacific Command retaining
operational control of U.S. forces located in Alaska, and U.S.
Northern Command assigned as the Department's advocate for
Arctic capabilities. Exacerbating the operational seam is the
fact that, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there
is no single person directly responsible for the coordination
of Arctic security issues. The committee is concerned that no
one combatant command nor one single entity within the Office
of the Secretary of Defense is tasked with operationalizing the
Department of Defense's 2016 Arctic Strategy.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
designate a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with primary
responsibilities for the Arctic Region, in order to coordinate
the formation of Arctic defense policy with relevant Department
of Defense entities. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for the Arctic Region would have the responsibilities of:
advocating for United States national security interests in the
Arctic region; mitigating operational seams between relevant
geographic and functional combatant commands in order to
improve unity of effort; identifying any capability and
resource gaps in the Arctic region and formulating plans to
mitigate these gaps; identifying the actions by foreign nations
that increase the threat to United States interests in the
Arctic region; formulating plans to mitigate these actions; and
planning military-to-military cooperation with partner nations
that have mutual security interests in the Arctic region. Not
later than December 1, 2018, the committee directs the
Secretary to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on how the Department plans to delegate and address
these responsibilities.

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 $4.5 billion of fiscal
year 2019 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.
Inclusion of funds for Air Force pass-through items in Defense-wide
budget for the Department of Defense (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force pass-through budget
items to the defense-wide budget for fiscal year 2020 and
future budget requests.
Each year, a significant portion of the Air Force budget
contains funds that are passed on to, and managed by, other
organizations with in the Department of Defense. This portion
of the budget, called ``pass-through,'' cannot be altered or
managed by the Air Force. It resides within the Air Force
budget for the purposes of the President's budget request and
apportionment, but is then transferred out of the Service's
control. In fiscal year 2018, the Air Force pass-through budget
amounted to approximately $22.0 billion, or just less than half
of the total Air Force procurement budget. The committee
believes that the current Air Force pass-through budgeting
process provides a misleading picture of the Air Force's actual
investment budget.
Report on shift in requests for funds for Department of Defense
activities from funds for overseas contingency operations to
funds through the base budget (sec. 1003)
The Department of Defense and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) have both stated their intentions to shift funding
in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts to base
funding starting in fiscal year 2020. According to the OMB, the
Department will be shifting $53.0 billion of the $73.0 billion
of OCO funding to base in fiscal year 2020. The shift of OCO to
base funding is an attempt by the Department and the OMB to
move enduring costs associated with overseas contingencies back
to the base budget. The committee supports a shift of OCO to
base if there is a comparable increase in the overall base
topline and if it is done in a responsible manner that does not
put at risk future funding for key programs, such as preferred
munitions or the European Deterrence Initiative.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision requiring
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to submit a report
that outlines the changes to the OMB OCO criteria and lists the
exact figure amounts by project or activity that are shifted
from OCO to base funding for the fiscal year 2020 budget
request.
Ranking of auditability of financial statements of the organizations
and elements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1004)
The committee recommends a provision that would reinstate a
reporting requirement that the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) rank the military departments, Defense Agencies,
and Field Activities in terms of audit progress.
Transparency of accounting firms used to support Department of Defense
audit (sec. 1005)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to mandate that any firm under contract or
consideration to support the Department of Defense's (DOD) full
financial statement audit provide a statement documenting any
relevant disciplinary proceedings currently in progress
involving that firm.
The committee notes that in order to complete the first
full financial statement audit of DOD, the Department will be
required to contract with accounting firms. However, the
committee urges the Department to create policies on disclosure
of any relevant proceedings that such firms are involved in, in
order to ensure that the firms are best qualified and
positioned to provide sound audit advice. The committee urges
the Department to consider such results and to look for an
unqualified peer review report when selecting a partner, in
order to ensure effective counsel on quality control processes
and audits.

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the Naval Vessel
Register and other fleet inventory measures (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the Naval
Vessel Register and other fleet inventory measures.
Annual reports on examination of Navy vessels (sec. 1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would require an
annual unclassified report from the President of the Board of
Inspection and Survey that would provide an unclassified
summary of inspection results for each fiscal year, including a
narrative summary, vessels inspected, and material readiness
trends.
Limitation on duration of homeporting of certain vessels in foreign
locations (sec. 1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
overseas homeport duration of certain ship classes to not more
than 10 consecutive years.
The committee notes the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report on May 29, 2015, titled ``Sustainable
Plan and Comprehensive Assessment Needed to Mitigate Long-Term
Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas Homeports'' (GAO-15-329),
which concluded that ``overseas-homeported ships have had lower
material condition since 2012 and experienced a worsening trend
in overall ship readiness when compared to U.S.-homeported
ships'' and ``because the Navy expects [overseas-homeported]
ships to be operationally available for the maximum amount of
time, their intermediate and depot-level maintenance is instead
executed through more frequent, shorter maintenance periods, or
deferred until after the ship returns to a U.S. homeport,
according to Navy officials.''
The committee further notes this GAO report states,
``According to Navy officials, forward-deployed ships are
typically homeported overseas for a period of 7 to 10 years
before being replaced with a ship of the same class from the
United States'' and that the Chief of Naval Operations
testified on January 18, 2018 before the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives that his goal was
overseas homeporting of not more than 8 years for a ship.
The committee understands the USS Fitzgerald and USS John
S. McCain were initially homeported in Yokosuka, Japan in 2004
(13 years ago) and 1997 (20 years ago), respectively. The
committee further understands other ships have exceeded the
Navy's overseas homeporting goals, including the USS Curtis
Wilber, which has been homeported in Yokosuka since 1996 (21
years).

Specific authorization requirement for nuclear refueling of aircraft
carriers (sec. 1014)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
specific authorization by statute before funds may be obligated
or expended for the procurement of a naval nuclear reactor
power unit or associated reactor components for the nuclear
refueling of an aircraft carrier.
The committee notes that the procurement lead time for some
nuclear components required to conduct a nuclear refueling
precedes the authorization for the associated aircraft carrier
refueling by several years.
Accordingly, in order to maintain appropriate oversight of
program execution, the committee believes that the Department
of Defense should obtain a specific authorization for such
nuclear components.

Dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (sec.
1015)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report be submitted to the congressional defense committees
prior to awarding a contract for dismantlement and disposal of
a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier or providing funding to a
naval shipyard for dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier.
The provision would also require additional information be
provided on the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers with the materials submitted to the Congress
by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget of the
President for each fiscal year.
The committee notes that in response to the Senate report
accompanying S. 1519 (S. Rept. 115-125) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has briefed the
committee on the Navy's considerations for the dismantlement
and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier.
The committee further notes GAO's preliminary analysis
indicates that the anticipated cost and schedule for
dismantlement and disposal of the Navy's nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers are comparable to large Department of Defense
(DOD) acquisition programs, which have structured oversight to
support transparency and accountability; however, ship
dismantlement and disposal has no specific reporting
requirements under DOD or Navy policy.
The committee believes information provided on
dismantlement and disposal as part of annual budget requests
currently lacks sufficient detail to inform oversight of ship-
specific activities. As the Navy has yet to dismantle and
dispose of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the committee
further believes establishing formal requirements will set a
precedent to enable sufficient oversight for these large-scale
dismantlement and disposal efforts.

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the
number of used vessels, from two to seven, that the Secretary
of Defense is authorized to purchase as part of a program to
recapitalize the surge sealift capability in the Ready Reserve
Force component of the National Defense Reserve Fleet and the
Military Sealift Command's surge fleet. This proposal would
also limit the time period during which such vessels could be
purchased to fiscal years 2019 through 2030.
Based on the Navy's fiscal year 2019 30-year shipbuilding
plan, the committee understands that meeting the full sealift
recapitalization requirement would entail procuring 26 used
vessels through fiscal year 2031. The committee notes that
authority to procure seven used vessels would be sufficient to
meet sealift recapitalization requirements through fiscal year
2025. In order to maintain oversight of this program while
allowing the Department to plan for the entire future years
defense program, the committee believes that authority to
procure such vessels should not exceed seven years.

Limitation on use of funds for retirement of hospital ships (sec. 1017)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
use of funds for the purpose of retiring or preparing to retire
a hospital ship.
The committee notes the Navy plans to decommission the USNS
Comfort hospital ship in fiscal year 2021, which would decrease
the Navy's hospital ship capacity by 50 percent, without a plan
programmed in the future years defense program to replace the
associated medical capability and capacity.

Subtitle C--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, 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

Extension of 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, 2019, 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.

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1023)

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to close or relinquish control
of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1024)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until fiscal year 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to close or abandon
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control
of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a
material modification to the Treaty between the United States
of America and Cuba signed at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934,
that constructively closes United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay.

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily
for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1025)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for
necessary medical treatment that is not available at
Guantanamo.

Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Strategic guidance documents within the Department of Defense (sec.
1031)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 113(g) of title 10, United States Code, to identify and
clarify three strategic guidance documents that support and
implement the National Defense Strategy, as well as describing
the elements to be included in each document. It would also
require the Secretary of Defense to submit these strategic
documents to the congressional defense committees.
In 2016, the committee acted to revitalize the Department
of Defense's strategy development process. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
replaced the Quadrennial Defense Review with a framework for a
more coherent and comprehensive National Defense Strategy. The
committee applauds the Secretary of Defense's efforts in
crafting the National Defense Strategy.
The committee recognizes that the ultimate success of the
National Defense Strategy will depend on how it is implemented
by strong civilian leadership in the Department of Defense, and
the rigorous oversight of the Congress. In order to ensure that
the congressional defense committees have the necessary
information to perform necessary oversight of the Department of
Defense's implementation of the National Defense Strategy, the
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit, to
the congressional defense committees, the three strategic
guidance documents which contain the policy direction for
executing the strategy: the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG),
the Contingency Planning Guidance (CPG)/Guidance for the
Employment of the Force (GEF), and the Global Defense Posture
Report.
The DPG establishes goals, priorities, and objectives,
including fiscal constraints, to direct the preparation and
review of the program and budget recommendations of all
elements of the Department. The CPG/GEF provides policy
guidance on the preparation and review of contingency and
campaign plans, which drive requirements for the Department's
program and budget requests. The Global Defense Posture Report
includes a description of U.S. forces, capabilities, and
equipment assigned and allocated outside of the United States
required to execute the strategy.
These strategic guidance documents set forth the Secretary
of Defense's policy guidance as to what the Department should
buy for the joint force, how the joint force is to be used, and
where the joint force is to be postured around the world in
order to execute the National Defense Strategy. These are
fundamental issues subject to the oversight of the
congressional defense committees. Therefore, the committee
believes it is both necessary and appropriate that the
Secretary of Defense should submit these documents to the
congressional defense committees.

Guidance on the electronic warfare mission area and joint
electromagnetic spectrum operations (sec. 1032)

The committee remains concerned that electronic warfare is
a warfighting area where our peer adversaries, such as China
and Russia, are establishing significant asymmetric advantages.
The Defense Science Board identified numerous vulnerabilities
in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment, and the
Department attempted to address these in the June 2017
Department of Defense Electronic Warfare Strategy. However the
committee assesses that the Department continues to approach
the electronic warfare mission area and joint electromagnetic
spectrum operations in an insufficient and uncoordinated manner
that risks the joint force lagging further behind our peer
competitor efforts.
The provision would establish a senior designated official
and an associated cross functional team to update the June 2017
Department of Defense Electronic Warfare strategy and submit
it, along with a road map of the referenced requirements and
plans, not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act
to the congressional defense committees. The road map would
include: the efforts undertaken in support of the 2017 DOD
Electronic Warfare strategy and any updates or changes to the
strategy since its issuance; a review of the vulnerabilities
identified in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment; an
assessment of the capability of the joint force to conduct
joint electromagnetic spectrum operations against peer
competitors; and a description of actions, performance metrics,
and projected timelines for achieving key capabilities for
electronic warfare and joint electromagnetic spectrum
operations. The road map would also include an analysis of any
personnel, resourcing, capability, authority, or other gaps to
be addressed in order to ensure effective implementation of the
strategy across all relevant elements of the Department.
Additionally, in consultation with the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, the cross functional team would
provide an assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of
Russia and China, a review of U.S. vulnerabilities with respect
to electronic systems, and a study of the manner in which
Russia and China develop electronic warfare doctrine, with
order of battle across multiple domains, and long-term research
trends of each country in connection with such warfare.
The senior designated official would also be required to
submit to the congressional defense committees an update
describing the status of the efforts of the Department in
accomplishing the tasks specified in the electronic warfare
strategy and the road map every 90 days after the initial
report is released.

Limitation on use of funds for United States Special Operations Command
Global Messaging and Counter-Messaging platform (sec. 1033)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for United States Special Operations Command's (SOCOM) global
messaging and counter-messaging (GMCM) platform until the
Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense
committees a report containing detailed information relating to
the platform and SOCOM's military information support
enterprise.
The committee notes that the budget request includes $18.0
million in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $7.0
million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for SOCOM's GMCM platform.
The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense has
identified SOCOM as the Department of Defense's (DOD) proponent
for military information support operations (MISO) and directed
the establishment of a centralized DOD MISO GMCM platform at
SOCOM. Given SOCOM's transregional approach to matters within
its purview, the committee believes the command is positioned
to play an important role in supporting the GMCM activities of
the other combatant commands by enabling facilities and
contracting efficiencies, the capture and adoption of best
practices, and messaging consistency across geographic
boundaries. However, the budget request lacks sufficient detail
on the plan for establishment of the GMCM capability, including
the identification of budget, infrastructure and equipment
requirements for the platform to reach full operational
capability as well as an identification of long-term
sustainment costs. Additionally, the committee requires greater
understanding of how GMCM planning and activities will be de-
conflicted and, where possible, integrated with the planning
and activities of the combatant commands as well as other
relevant departments and agencies of the United States
Government, including the Department of State's Global
Engagement Center.
Lastly, the committee is concerned that the doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,
personnel and facilities applicable to military information
support capabilities has not kept pace with emerging challenges
and opportunities in the information environment. Specifically,
the committee believes the MISO enterprise remains too focused
on tactical activities using traditional media and has not
evolved to adequately counter adversary messaging through
social media and other modern forms of communication. The
committee notes that the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) ``Web
Ops'' capability was established to counter online propaganda
of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and is the predecessor
to the proposed SOCOM GMCM platform. Despite the existence of a
military information support military occupational specialty
for decades, the MISO enterprise played only a minimal,
supporting role in the activities of the CENTCOM Web Ops
platform. The committee believes this situation is symptomatic
of broader deficiencies in the MISO enterprise. Therefore, the
recommended provision requires the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of the doctrine, organization, training,
materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities
applicable to military information support capabilities with a
goal of improving the capabilities of the MISO enterprise to
more effectively operate in the information environment against
both state and non-state actors.

Sense of Congress on the basing of KC-46A aircraft outside the
continental United States (sec. 1034)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress regarding the basing of KC-46A tanker
aircraft outside of the continental United States.

Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction of criminal offenses
committed by juveniles on military installations (sec. 1035)

The committee recommends a provision that, in the case of
any military installation or portion of a military installation
of which exclusive legislative jurisdiction of criminal
offenses committed by juveniles is retained by the United
States as of the date of the enactment of this Act, would
require the relevant service secretary to seek to relinquish to
the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession concerned
legislative jurisdiction of such offenses such that the United
States and the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession
would have concurrent legislative jurisdiction of such
offenses.

Policy on response to juvenile-on-juvenile abuse committed on military
installations (sec. 1036)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy, applicable across
the military installations of the Department of Defense, on the
response of the Department to allegations of juvenile-on-
juvenile abuse on military installations.

Subtitle E--Studies and Reports

Report on highest-priority roles and missions of the Department of
Defense and the Armed Forces (sec. 1041)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees concerning a re-evaluation of the highest
priority missions for the Department of Defense, the roles of
the Joint Force in the performance of such missions, and the
capability requirements which stem from them. The required
report, due February 2019, includes a series of questions
further inquiring about the specific impacts of the National
Defense Strategy on the Department of Defense.
Over the years, the committee has received briefings and
testimony describing the degrading state of U.S. military
capabilities vis-a-vis peer adversaries. The reasons for this
are numerous: unstable budgets, sustained high operational
tempo, as well as increased investments in military
capabilities of adversaries. The committee has been concerned
about the state of U.S. overmatch for several years and
believes that changing this trend is a high priority for the
Department.
For this reason, the committee believes that the National
Defense Strategy correctly characterizes the leading strategic
challenge facing the United States as the reemergence of great
power competition. Furthermore, the NDS prioritizes the
development of a more lethal joint force to deter, and if
necessary, defeat aggression by peer-adversaries. The committee
is supportive of efforts by the Department, to implement the
NDS. However, as the Commission on the National Defense
Strategy recommends, the Department must conduct further
analytical work to identify the specifics of how the NDS will
be implemented.
The reporting requirement poses ten overarching questions
that the committee believes are natural issues that arise from
the change in priorities identified in the NDS. Those questions
include such things as an update to the roles and missions of
the military services, how the NDS impacts the military's end
strength requirements, how the military will be conducting the
counterterrorism mission, and how capability requirements and
investments throughout the Joint Force are impacted by focusing
on peer-adversaries and operating in a contested environment.
These questions are key for the committee to better understand
the implications of the NDS, and better facilitates the
committee to perform oversight over budgetary authorizations.
As related to this reporting requirement, the committee
recommends several provisions that would limit the obligation
and expenditure of authorized funding for various programs,
until this reporting requirement is met.

Annual reports by the Armed Forces on Out-Year Unconstrained Total
Munitions Requirements and Out-Year inventory numbers (sec.
1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title
10 to require the Services provide an annual report to the
Congress detailing the Armed Forces' annual total munitions
requirements and out-year munitions inventory numbers. The
details of the report would be based on the Department of
Defense's munitions requirements process.

Comprehensive review of operational and administrative chains-of-
command and functions of the Department of the Navy (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a comprehensive review of the
operational and administrative chains-of-command and functions
in the Department of the Navy.

Military aviation readiness review in support of the National Defense
Strategy (sec. 1044)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a joint review of military
aviation and deliver an accompanying report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than 1 year after the enactment of
this Act.

Report on capabilities and capacities of Armored Brigade Combat Teams
(sec. 1045)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the capabilities and capacity of Armored Brigades
Combat Teams (ABCT) no later than 60 days after the enactment
of this bill into law.
The committee notes that the Army has taken action to
improve readiness over the last several years, but the focus
has been primarily on infantry brigade combat teams (IBCT). In
light of requirements in the National Defense Strategy (NDS),
the committee would like to know the total number of ABCTs
required to support the NDS and how the Army will equip and
field future ABCTs. Furthermore, if current levels of
mechanized infantry are insufficient to maintain the combined
arms nature of the ABCTs, the committee would like to
understand how the Army will address the need for additional
mechanized infantry companies. In addition, the committee would
like to understand how the Army is improving battalion and
brigade-level combined arms live-fire exercises both at home
station and at the Combat Training Centers. The committee would
like to know what training is being conducted for ABCTs in
combined arms for air defense and counter unmanned aerial
vehicles missions with organic weapons and tactics. The
Secretary should also report plans for improving personnel
preparedness by the reduction of non-deployable soldiers,
combat vehicle crew stability, and the material readiness of
key combat systems.
The committee notes that several key combat systems, such
as Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Paladin howitzers,
and M88 recovery vehicles, have unacceptably high non-mission
capable rates due to the lack of repair parts and number of
qualified mechanics. The Secretary is encouraged to provide a
status update on the mission capable rates of these key combat
systems and explain the Army's plan to repair these
deficiencies. Finally, the report should outline plans to
modernize ABCTs to fill capability gaps, improve key weapon
systems and ensure effective, suitable and survivable mobile
command, control and communications.

Improvement of annual report on civilian casualties in connection with
United States military operations (sec. 1046)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to clarify annual
reporting requirements on civilian casualties in connection
with United States military operations.

Report on Department of Defense participation in Export Administration
Regulations license application review process (sec. 1047)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the participation
by the Department of Defense in the process for reviewing
applications for export licenses under the Export
Administration Regulations as a reviewing agency under
Executive Order 12981. The provision would require that the
report be submitted to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act and every
180 days thereafter until the date that is 3 years after such
date of enactment.

Automatic sunset for future statutory reporting requirements (sec.
1048)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
an automatic sunset of three years for future statutory
reporting requirements of indefinite duration. The committee
notes that excess reporting requirements impose costs on the
Department of Defense that compound over time and three years
would provide adequate time to determine the necessity of a
reporting requirement and to request an extension for those
requirements that continue to serve an important purpose to the
committee's oversight role.

Repeal of certain Department of Defense reporting requirements that
otherwise terminate as of December 31, 2021 (sec. 1049)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
certain Department of Defense reporting requirements that are
otherwise set to terminate as of December 31, 2021. The
committee notes that the included reports have served their
oversight purpose and will be repealed so as to reduce the
burden placed on the Department of Defense by compounding
reporting requirements, which drive up costs and distract
offices from their primary missions.

Report on potential improvements to certain military educational
institutions of the Department of Defense (sec. 1050)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
no later than December 1, 2019, reviewing educational
institutions of the Department of Defense. The review would be
conducted by an outside organization with expertise in
analyzing matters in connection with higher education.

Recruiting costs of the Armed Forces (sec. 1051)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the costs of recruiting for the Armed Forces.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup (sec. 1061)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of
State for the Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup in Vietnam. Since the
normalization of U.S.-Vietnam relations in 1995, the United
States and Vietnam have made remarkable progress in
transcending the legacy of war and building a strategic
partnership to defend shared interests and common values. The
committee recognizes that the Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup--carried
out with financial contributions from the Government of
Vietnam, the Department of State, the Department of Defense,
and other international partners--would be another significant
milestone in the progress of U.S.-Vietnam relations and would
support the continued advancement of a strategic partnership
rooted in a shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific
region that is peaceful, stable, and prosperous.

Improvement of database on emergency response capabilities (sec. 1062)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1406 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to require the Department
of Defense (DOD) to establish the database required under that
section not later than one year after the date of enactment of
this Act. Furthermore, the provision would require the database
to include information on the emergency response capabilities
of the National Guard of each U.S. Territory and information on
the cyber capabilities of National Guard and Reserve units
identified by the DOD as critical for response to domestic
natural or man-made disasters. Finally, the provision would
clarify that the Department may use an existing database or
system to fulfill the requirement to establish a database under
certain circumstances.

Acceptance and distribution by Department of Defense of assistance from
certain nonprofit entities in support of missions of deployed
United States personnel around the world (sec. 1063)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate regarding collaboration with and the
provision of logistical support to covered non-Federal
entities, including Spirit of America, to advance the military
missions of the Armed Forces.
The provision would also authorize the Department of
Defense, consistent with applicable guidance, to accept from
any covered non-Federal entity privately funded humanitarian,
economic, and other nonlethal assistance; and respond to
requests from covered non-Federal entities for the
identification of the needs of local populations abroad for
assistance, and coordinate with such entities in the provision
and distribution of such assistance.

United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation and
overflight (sec. 1064)

The committee recommends a provision that would state that
it is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate
throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever
international law allows. The provision would also describe the
steps the Secretary of Defense should take in furtherance of
that policy.

Prohibition of funds for Chinese language instruction provided by a
Confucius Institute (sec. 1065)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2019 under this Act to be
obligated or expended for Chinese language instruction provided
by a Confucius Institute.
The provision would also prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2019 under this Act to be obligated or expended to support
a Chinese language program at an institution of higher
education that hosts a Confucius Institute. The provision would
allow the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to waive this limitation if the Under Secretary
provides a certification to the congressional defense
committees that, among other elements, Confucius Institute
employees and instructors will have no affiliation with the
program, provide no instruction or support to the program, and
have no authority or influence with regard to the curriculum
and activities of the program.

Items of Special Interest

Audit materiality standards relating to valuation

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) on
beginning its first department-wide financial audit. The
committee views the audit as vital to the health of Department
finances and business-related activities which directly impact
our national security. In order to achieve maximum benefit from
conducting an annual full financial audit, the Department must
exercise continued transparency to this committee and to the
American people.
The committee understands that the Department is still
developing materiality standards regarding property, plant, and
equipment valuation for the department-wide audit. The
committee also understands that judgments about materiality
standards for valuation have been developed and used by other
government entities and large private companies in the process
of achieving an unqualified audit opinion.
Materiality standards and thresholds are critical factors
in the conduct and results of a full financial audit.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide an
update on their assertions regarding materiality standards
relating to valuation within the department-wide audit in order
to promote necessary transparency and accountability by
December 31, 2018.

Business case analysis for the 168th Air Refueling Wing

The committee notes that the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the Secretary of the
Air Force to conduct a business case analysis on the creation
of an Active Duty association for the 168th Air Refueling Wing.
However, the committee notes that since the prescribed analysis
was completed in December 2016, two important developments have
occurred that were not taken into account. First, consideration
of the addition of two F-35A squadrons at Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska, in 2020, and an examination of future shortfalls
in air refueling requirements due to such additional aircraft.
Second, consideration of the increased operations tempo of the
168th Air Refueling Wing due to increased mission requirements
of the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The committee
believes that consideration of these two factors could
potentially have led to different conclusions in the 2016
analysis.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to update the 2016 business case analysis taking into
consideration the aforementioned factors and brief the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives on its results no later than March 1, 2019.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response Enterprise

A robust Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
(CBRN) Response Enterprise is critical to our nation's
security. U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) plays an integral
part of any domestic CBRN response, and the committee applauds
the role the National Guard performs in such a response. The
committee also notes the importance of coordinated combined
training and operations between the Department of Defense (DOD)
and civilian first responders and agencies, including the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
To further enhance this collaboration, the committee
believes DOD and civilian agencies that sponsor first responder
training should coordinate such training opportunities at the
individual level. As NORTHCOM continues to execute unit-level
and enterprise-wide training events, such as through exercises
with major metropolitan cities, the Department should consider
allowing state and local first responders to participate in
CBRN response training programs provided by the individual
military services, particularly those supported by Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants, such as those
offered at the Army's Maneuver Support Center of Excellence
(MSCOE), on a space-available basis. This would better
integrate NORTHCOM's overall response to a CBRN event. The
committee also believes that there are cost efficiencies and
improved information-sharing and integration that could result
from using existing DOD CBRN training facilities.
Therefore, the committee directs DOD, in coordination with
DHS, to develop a plan to expand individual training
opportunities on a space-available basis for state and local
first responders. This plan should examine and take into
consideration: (1) Existing DOD programs that provide trained
and certified service members to serve in the CBRN Response
Enterprise (CRE) including standardized training products and
facilities offered by the Army's MSCOE and the Army Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School and their ability
to provide courses to non-DOD students that comply with
civilian standards and industry best practices; (2) Existing
programs and training standards set by the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), the Emergency Management
Institute (EMI), and the Center for Domestic Preparedness
(CDP), a training component of FEMA; (3) Any additional or
unmet CBRN training requirements that are needed by the
National Guard, Department of Homeland Security, other federal
agencies, and state and local first responders that can
currently be provided by the Department of Defense and military
services to better integrate civilian CBRN training; and (4)
Any other factors the Secretary deems appropriate. The
Department should submit such a plan to the committee no later
than March 1, 2019.

Comptroller General report on monitoring ongoing challenges in remotely
piloted aircraft community

The committee continues to follow the retention and quality
of life of pilots and sensor operators in the remotely piloted
aircraft (RPA) community. In April 2018, the Air Force provided
a report on the RPA Culture and Process Improvement Plan
(CPIP), pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). The committee
applauds the Air Force on the achievements detailed in the
report, including reaching a 10:1 crew-to-combat line ratio in
December 2016.
The committee notes that the CPIP report detailed ongoing
shortfalls in quality of life services for the RPA community
and contained little detail on the Air Force's plans to address
those shortfalls. The Air Force's own studies have found poor
quality of life have a major impact on morale and wellbeing in
the RPA community, which is compounded by the effects of high
demand and persistent shiftwork.
The committee reiterates its commitment to receiving a
detailed plan from the Air Force on expeditiously expanding
access to housing, childcare, exchanges and commissaries,
quality schools, and spouse employment opportunities at
military installations where RPAs operate. The committee also
notes that such a plan was required by Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA.
The committee notes the Air Force's plans to implement a
combat-to-dwell policy within the next six years. While the
committee supports that goal, it remains concerned about
ongoing stress in the RPA community in the interim and the
effect it will have on morale and retention.
Therefore the committee directs Comptroller General of the
United States to complete a report reviewing the Air Force's
plan to expand services at RPA bases, as well as the service's
plans to implement a combat-to-dwell policy. The report should
address: (1) Challenges in expanding services at RPA bases and
mitigation options; (2) How the service can incrementally
reduce RPA operator stress and improve workload prior to
achieving 1:0.5 combat-to-dwell; (3) How to balance production
of additional sorties with attendant staffing requirements to
support training; and (4) How to achieve retention goals to
support the timeline for increasing the combat-to-dwell time
ratio. Preliminary observations shall be provided to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by the end of March 2019. At that time, a final
product due date will be determined.

Comptroller General review of Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers

The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) maintains long-term strategic partnerships with Federally
Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and relies on
their capabilities to quickly respond to the needs of the
Department while offering independent and objective scientific
and technical advice, and other research services. FFRDCs
provide federal agencies with capabilities that cannot be
effectively met by the federal government or the private sector
alone.
FFRDCs are often given unique access to government data,
employees, and facilities to complete their research. According
to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that regulates
FFRDCs, these organizations must (1) Operate in the public
interest with objectivity and independence; (2) Be free from
organizational conflicts of interest; and (3) Fully disclose
their activities to their sponsoring agency.
The committee supports the Department in utilizing FFRDCs
for high quality and independent research to fulfill
Congressional mandates and to otherwise inform DOD decision
making. In fiscal year 2015, the Federal Government spent
$128.6 billion on R&D. Of that amount, $11.1 billion went to
FFRDCs. FFRDCs are a critical resource for decision makers in
DOD and Congress. Due to the sensitive and extensive research
conducted by FFRDCs, the committee encourages the Department to
ensure that FFRDCs continue to maintain the neutrality and
objectivity imperative to the completion of quality products
without the pressures of predetermined outcomes.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct a review of the Department's use of FFRDCs
over the past 5 years and to provide a report on this review to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by no later than January 31, 2019. The review
shall include, at a minimum: (1) The amount each military
department and the Office of the Secretary of Defense spent on
FFRDC research in Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017; (2)
Identification of each research project conducted during those
years; (3) FFRDC and Department policies intended to maintain
the research independence of FFRDCs; (4) The number of FFRDC
recommendations that have been implemented by DOD since Fiscal
Year 2007; and (5) The Comptroller General's view of the value
provided to the Federal Government by FFRDCs and the ability of
private sector companies to provide a similar research option
at competitive prices.

Department of Defense information operations

The committee notes the importance of information
superiority in peacetime competition and modern warfare. The
committee concurs with the priority placed on information
operations in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS)
and the necessity to drive effective communications to ``expose
adversary propaganda and disinformation.'' The Department of
Defense (DOD) further highlighted this objective in the
National Defense Strategy (NDS). Defensively, the NDS
prioritized interagency cooperation with the Department of
State and other agencies ``to address areas of economic,
technological, and information vulnerabilities.'' Offensively,
the NDS called for tactical, operational, and strategic
investments ``to gain and exploit information'' and to ``deny
competitors those same advantages''. The committee supports
DOD's broad vision for achieving and maintaining information
superiority.
Moreover, the committee notes that DOD actively produces
content for information operations seeking to fulfill the NSS
objective of exposing adversary propaganda and disinformation.
Even so, the committee recognizes the technical and political
difficulties inherent in transmitting such content into target
markets. Maintaining information superiority during peacetime
competition requires interagency cooperation to move beyond
content production into dissemination in both permissive and
contested information environments. In order to effectively
operate in the information environment, DOD must continue to
leverage the full spectrum of capabilities, ranging from
existing telecommunication assets to emerging technologies in
cyberspace.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act identifying
any capability gaps that would inhibit the ability of the
Geographic Combatant Commanders to disseminate information
content in support of the NSS and the NDS, to include content
produced by other elements of the U.S. Government.

Marine Mammal Program and Support to Civil Authorities

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy's
Marine Mammal Program has been successful in training marine
mammals to perform countermeasures and mine detection to ensure
port security. The committee urges those state and local
authorities wishing to request assistance from this program for
homeland security purposes do so through the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security.
Such requests are made on a reimbursable basis and may not
adversely affect military preparedness in accordance with
section 2564 of title 10, United States Code, and sections 272-
276 of title 10, United States Code.

Navy mine countermeasures aboard vessels of opportunity

The committee notes the Navy program-of-record includes 24
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures (MCM) mission
packages. The committee understands the Navy plans to use nine
of these MCM mission packages on vessels of opportunity (VOOs).
The committee recognizes that VOOs can provide additional MCM
host platform capacity to meet warfighting capability
requirements and account for MCM maintenance cycles.
Therefore, not later than February 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the plan to field MCM mission packages on
VOOs. The report shall include the following: (1) A description
of VOOs approved or under consideration to serve as a MCM host
platform; (2) The VOO shipboard systems and integration
necessary to serve as a MCM host platform; (3) The MCM mission
package systems planned to be employed from a VOO; (4) The test
plan necessary to achieve operational effectiveness and
suitability determinations for VOOs serving as MCM host
platforms; and (5) The schedule and funding by fiscal year
necessary to achieve the full operational capability for VOOs
serving as MCM host platforms.

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life assessment

The committee notes that the first Nimitz-class aircraft
carrier, USS Nimitz (CVN-68) is planned to decommission in
fiscal year 2025 at its expected service life of 50 years of
service. The committee further notes that the Navy has extended
the service lives of many ship classes, including Ohio-class
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines from 30 years to
42 years. Recognizing the policy of the United States to
achieve a 355-ship Navy includes 12 aircraft carriers, the
committee is interested in better understanding the technical
and engineering feasibility of extending Nimitz-class aircraft
carriers beyond the class' 50-year planned service life.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than January 1, 2019, on the options to extend the
service lives of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. This report
shall include each of the following: (1) The technical and
engineering feasibility of extending the service life of each
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier; (2) The duration of such service
life extensions; (3) Notional cost and schedule estimates for
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life extensions; (4)
Public or private shipyard availability to accomplish such
service life extensions; and (5) An assessment by the Secretary
on the merits of implementing such options.

Overclassification of Department of Defense information

The committee believes protecting national security
information and demonstrating our commitment to transparency
through the proper application of classification standards are
equally important and compatible priorities. However, the
committee is growing increasingly concerned by the Department
of Defense's recent tendency to restrict information that was
previously unclassified and had been routinely available
publicly. For example, in materials submitted in support of the
services' budget requests, similar information was marked by
some services as ``sensitive but unclassified'' but left
unmarked by other services. In addition, the committee has
observed recent incidents limiting distribution of reports from
the Comptroller General of the United States, among others.
While the committee understands the need to protect operational
security, unnecessarily restricting the ability of the
committee to share information makes it difficult for the
committee to perform its constitutional oversight
responsibilities in a transparent manner. Moreover, restricting
information limits the American taxpayers' visibility into the
Department's use of its significant budgetary resources.
The committee looks forward to working with the Department
to prevent overzealous use of dissemination control and
handling markings that could unnecessarily restrict information
sharing. Doing so will enable the committee to be open and
transparent about key information, to include reports of the
Comptroller General and other audit organizations, that informs
the committee's deliberations and oversight activities.

Policy of the Department of Defense on contract terms to support
achievement of full financial audits

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to jointly develop a report on how future
Department of Defense (DOD) contracts will support the
valuation of, and accounting for, inventory and related
property, general property, plant, and equipment constructed or
acquired in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. The report must be submitted by March 1, 2019 to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
The committee urges the DOD to recognize the complex
changes in business processes, including contracting, that must
occur to achieve an unqualified audit opinion. Currently, some
DOD contracts do not consider the need for auditors to
accurately value and account for associated property or to
separately identify and track all capital and expense-type
items. This report should outline a path forward for a common-
sense policy that accounts for these business process needs
without imposing undue additional bureaucracy or slowness on
the organization.

Report on training and readiness of Navy surface ships

The committee notes the 2017 Navy Comprehensive Review and
Strategic Readiness Review (SRR) of surface Navy incidents
identified unit-level certification standards as an area of
concern. For example, the SRR found, ``The Navy's readiness
standards for training opportunities, certifications,
maintenance availabilities, and manning quality and levels,
have been thoughtfully established. However, the Navy allowed
these standards to erode to the point that they are nearly
ineffective, especially in the case of Forward Deployed Naval
Forces in Japan.''
Therefore, not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary for the Navy shall submit
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on the training and readiness of
Navy surface ships. This report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the tasks each Navy surface ship shall
accomplish to achieve each required training certification; (2)
A description of the manner in which the readiness of Navy
surface ships will be measured and assessed in order to ensure
that requirements for each training certification applicable to
such ships are being met; (3) A description of the required
frequency of recertifications of Navy surface ships with
respect to each required training certification; (4) A
description of waivers and associated mitigation measures
allowable for each required training certification; and (5) Any
other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.

Review of Surface Warfare Officer initial training

The committee understands the current Navy Surface Warfare
Officer (SWO) candidate training curriculum is comprised of
primarily classroom and simulator training methods. The
committee believes SWO candidates lack sufficient at-sea
training before reporting to their first ships. The committee
is concerned that the lack of practical at-sea experience
before reporting to their first ships may result in SWOs having
gaps in their foundational safety, seamanship, and navigation
knowledge, skills, and experience. The committee has previously
encouraged the Navy to utilize Navy Yard Patrol craft for SWO
candidate training in the Senate report accompanying S. 2943
(S. Rept. 114-255) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). Additionally, the
2017 Comprehensive Review of Surface Force Incidents directed
an evaluation of the use of YP craft in all officer accession
programs, including the feasibility of expanding YP craft use.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to review
and determine the adequacy and appropriate balance of practical
at-sea, virtual, classroom, and other training for SWO
candidates, including accessions from the U.S. Naval Academy,
Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, and Officer Candidate
School, and the extent to which such training provides the
necessary foundational safety, seamanship, and navigation
knowledge, skills, and experience. Not later than October 1,
2018, the Secretary shall provide a report to the congressional
defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United
States with the results of this review and any associated
policy changes.
Not later than 120 days after receiving the Secretary of
the Navy's report, the Comptroller General is directed to
provide the congressional defense committees with a written
review of the Secretary's report, including matters in
connection with the Secretary's report and review that the
Comptroller General considers appropriate.

Strategic dispersal of capital ships

The committee continues to affirm the judgment of the
Chiefs of Naval Operations, first stated in the Senate report
(S. Rept. 209-254) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364),
that the Atlantic Fleet should continue to be dispersed in two
homeports. On January 14, 2009, the Navy issued a Record of
Decision to establish a second Atlantic Fleet nuclear aircraft
carrier homeport at Naval Station Mayport in order to
strategically disperse some of the most expensive and essential
assets of the U.S. Fleet. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
validated the Navy's decision, stating ``to mitigate the risk
of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural disaster, the U.S.
Navy will homeport an East Coast carrier in Mayport, Florida.''
The committee remains concerned that, despite the validated
need for dispersal of some the Navy's most expensive assets
along the East Coast, the Navy has continually deferred
projects necessary to achieve this strategic imperative. The
committee believes that the Navy must review and update
analysis of the need for strategic dispersal of the Atlantic
Fleet along the East Coast. Further, the committee believes
that, should such a review revalidate the strategic imperative
for further dispersal of these ships, the Navy must carry out
implementation of plans to enable this dispersal.

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters

Inapplicability of certification of executive qualifications by
qualification review boards of Office of Personnel Management
for initial appointments to Senior Executive Service positions
in Department of Defense (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would temporarily
exempt the Department of Defense from the requirement that
Office of Personnel Management qualification review boards
certify candidates for senior executive service positions
within the Department. The provision would sunset 2-years after
enactment.
Direct hire authority for science and technology reinvention
laboratories and Major Range and Test Facilities Base
facilities for recent science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics graduates of minority-serving institutions (sec.
1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would create a
direct-hire authority at Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratories and Major Range and Test Facilities Base
Facilities for graduates of minority-serving institutions with
degrees in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering.
Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental of the Department of Defense in personnel
management authority to attract experts in science and
engineering (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
existing direct hiring authority codified in section 1599h of
title 10, United States Code, to the Strategic Capabilities
Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental.
Enhancement of flexible management authorities for Science and
Technology Reinvention Laboratories of the Department of
Defense (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend and
enhance existing direct hiring authorities at the Science and
Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) within the
Department of Defense. These provisions would extend pilot
programs from previous National Defense Authorization Acts
based on the committee's continuing desire to ensure that the
Department of Defense is able to recruit and retain high
quality technical talent in its laboratories.
Inclusion of Office of Secretary of Defense among components of the
Department of Defense covered by direct hire authority for
financial management experts (sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
direct hire authority created in section 1110 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) for financial management experts to include the Office of
Secretary of Defense.
Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Joint Special
Operations University (sec. 1106)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Defense to employ and develop compensation
policies for civilian professors, instructors, and lecturers at
the Joint Special Operations University.

Subtitle B--Government-Wide Matters

Alcohol testing of civil service mariners of the Military Sealift
Command assigned to vessels (sec. 1121)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 643 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to prescribe regulations establishing a
program to conduct on-duty reasonable suspicion alcohol testing
and post-accident alcohol testing of civil service mariners of
the Military Sealift Command assigned to vessels. In addition,
this provision would amend section 7479 of such title to permit
release of alcohol testing results to the Coast Guard.
Expedited hiring authority for college graduates and post secondary
students (sec. 1122)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
recruitment and hiring process to provide additional
flexibility in hiring college graduates and students. This
authority would allow Federal agencies to determine recruitment
sources and processes for the solicitation of applications in
order to compete for top talent. The Director of the Office of
Personnel Management would have the authority to cap the number
of hires made under this authority.
Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay
authorized for civilian employees (sec. 1123)
The committee recommends a proposal that would amend
sections 3523 and 9902 of title 5, United States Code, to
increase the maximum amount of separation pay authorized for
Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) from the current
ceiling of $25,000 to $40,000, and includes an annual
adjustment in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. The
maximum payable amount has not been adjusted since VSIP was
first authorized by the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of
2002 (title XIII of Public Law 107-296).
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
in a combat zone (sec. 1124)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by
one year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal
agency to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities
comparable to those provided to members of the Foreign Service
to an agency's civilian employees on official duty in a combat
zone.

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1125)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
most recently amended by section 1137 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), to
extend through 2019 the authority of heads of executive
agencies to waive limitation on the aggregate of basic and
premium pay of employees who perform work in an overseas
location that is in the area of responsibility of the commander
of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was
formerly in CENTCOM, but has been moved to an area of
responsibility for the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in
support of a military operation or an operation in response to
a declared emergency.

Items of Special Interest

Competitive salary and benefits for science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics professionals

The committee believes the Department of Defense must
develop new and innovative methods to attract and manage talent
with highly valuable technical skills. The committee recognizes
that with new technologies and systems, the civilian and
military workforce must be well-trained in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). To
this end, the Department of Defense, in coordination with the
Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Energy,
should conduct a comparison of salary and benefits for
government professional engineers and scientists compared to
similar positions in the private sector, and report the results
of such comparison to the congressional defense committees no
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
This study should consider new competitive strategies to hire
and retain a skilled workforce in the STEM fields.

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Clarification of authority for use of advisors and trainers for
training of personnel of foreign ministries with security
missions under defense institution capacity building
authorities (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 332 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the
provision of assistance to build the institutional capacity of
foreign partners. The committee expects the Department of
Defense to continue its efforts to emphasize strengthening the
defense institutions of friendly foreign nations as a key
component of its security cooperation programs and believes the
modification contained in this provision will provide
appropriate flexibility for the Department to fulfill its
requirements under section 332 of title 10, United States Code.
Modification to Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec.
1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical modification to section 341(b)(2) of title 10, United
States Code to clarify the conditions under which vetting
pursuant to section 362, title 10, United States Code, is
required for the conduct of Department of Defense State
Partnership Program activities. The committee notes that this
technical correction does not constitute a change in
congressional intent but rather seeks to clarify its
longstanding intent that only those activities that involve the
provision of training and assistance require such vetting.
Expansion of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to
include irregular warfare (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 354 of title 10, United States Code and expand the
Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to
include irregular warfare. The committee notes that adversarial
nations are becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S.
interests and partnerships and destabilizing regional order
through the use of asymmetric means that often fall below the
threshold of traditional armed conflict. As such, the committee
believes it is important that the Department of Defense's
efforts to build the capacity of foreign partner forces reflect
the evolving nature of the global security environment.
Extension and modification of authority to support border security
operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as amended, by
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide support on a
reimbursable basis to the Government of Oman and Government of
Pakistan for the purposes of supporting and enhancing efforts
of the armed forces of Oman and Pakistan to increase and
sustain security along the borders of Yemen and Afghanistan,
respectively.
The provision would also require quarterly reports on the
use of this authority, including descriptions of the efforts of
each country reimbursed and assessments of the value of such
efforts. Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report 15 days prior to the
provision of support under this authority to any country that
has not previously received such support detailing the purpose,
amount, and anticipated duration of the support along with a
certification that the recipient country has increased border
security and that the provision of such support is in the
interest of United States national security. This provision
would also add several conditions on reimbursements to
Pakistan. Finally, the provision would extend this authority
through December 31, 2021.
Legal and policy review of advise, assist, and accompany missions (sec.
1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense, in coordination with the
appropriate combatant commands, not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on a review of the
legal and policy frameworks associated with advise, assist, and
accompany missions by United States military personnel.
Technical corrections relating to defense security cooperation
statutory reorganization (sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical corrections to title 10, United States Code, and
other legislation referencing sections that were redesignated
under section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training School (sec. 1207)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to operate and maintain the Naval
Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training School
(NAVSCIATTS).

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1211)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority under section 1222 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-238), as
most recently amended by section 1212 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-125), to
continue certain established provisions applicable to the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF), including use of the
funds, transfer authority, and acceptance of contributions to
provide assistance to the security forces of the Ministry of
Defense and Ministry of Interior of Afghanistan, including the
provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, and funds
for developing the capacity of Afghanistan's security
ministries.
This provision would also continue the authorization for
the Department of Defense to accept the return of equipment
procured using ASFF that is damaged, excess to need, or
otherwise not accepted by the Afghan security forces. The
provision would extend spending goals for the ASFF to promote
the recruitment, training, and integration of women into the
Afghan security forces. It would also include additional
reporting criteria in the Secretary of Defense's assessment of
the progress made by the Afghan government toward achieving
security, peace, and reconciliation objectives. Additionally,
it would extend the authorization for the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to withhold
assistance for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
if the determination is made that such progress has been
insufficient. The committee encourages the provision of
assistance to be closely tied to progress in these critical
areas.
The committee has closely watched the ongoing efforts to
reform Afghan government institutions and root out corruption
in commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous society.
The introduction of the bilateral U.S.-Afghanistan Compact,
with a focus on the four pillars of governance, economics,
peace and reconciliation, and security, was a welcome step in
the right direction. However, the committee is disappointed by
the lack of transparency provided by the Department of Defense
and the Department of State on the central tenants of the
Compact and the associated benchmarks. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Department of Defense, in coordination with the
Department of State, to provide a briefing to the committee on
the Compact, including the benchmarks and associated timelines,
no later than October 31, 2018.
The committee understands that the Combined Security
Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) conducted a tactical
wheeled vehicle (TWV) optimization study in 2016 in support of
the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces with a focus on
creating a sustainable, affordable, and effective fleet to
increase combat capability and force protection for occupants.
The committee would like to understand how this study has
informed procurement decisions for TWV in the ASFF. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to Armed Services Committee of the Senate not later
than October 31, 2018, on the results of the TWV study,
including the types of vehicles considered in the study; their
respective cost, operational survivability, and sustainability;
and how the results of the study are reflected in ASFF
procurements.

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1212)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to make Coalition Support Fund (CSF) reimbursements
under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended, through
fiscal year 2019 and would limit the total amount of
reimbursements that may be provided in fiscal year 2019 to
$350.0 million. Under this provision, the Secretary of Defense
may use Coalition Support Funds to reimburse certain nations
for support provided to or in connection with U.S. military
operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. This authority may
only be used with regard to Pakistan pursuant to section 1226
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), as amended by this Act.
The committee recognizes that stability in the South Asia
region cannot be achieved without stability in Pakistan and
that engaging with the Government of Pakistan in order to
ensure a strong, stable, and secure nation is consistent with
the national security goals of the United States. The
relationship between the United States and Pakistan, however,
is under significant strain. Cooperation in key areas, to
include counterterrorism, has fallen short of expectations and
has, in some cases, run counter to U.S. national security
interests and regional stability. The committee recognizes that
there are a number of areas in which U.S. and Pakistani
national security interests converge and that it is important
to continue to seek methods and processes by which coordination
and cooperation can occur in transparent and mutually
beneficial ways. Therefore, the committee recommends the
provision of CSF reimbursements for a set of narrowly defined,
measurable border security activities under the conditions set
forth in section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as amended by this
Act, in the hope that such efforts may provide a productive
framework for continued U.S.-Pakistani engagement in the
future.

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
(sec. 1213)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2019, the authority under section 1222 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-238), as most recently amended by section 1212
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-125), to transfer defense articles being drawn
down in Afghanistan and to provide defense services in
connection with such transfers to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through
fiscal year 2019 the exemption for excess defense articles
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks in
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195).

Modification of reporting requirements for special immigrant visas for
Afghan allies program (sec. 1214)

The committee recommends a provision that would renew a
reporting requirement under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of
2009 to assess the health of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV)
application process and identify any delays in orderly visa
processing. Afghan allies work with the United States and
coalition partners, often at great personal risk and sacrifice.
Sustaining support from Afghan individuals willing to partner
with the U.S. Government is critical to the mission in
Afghanistan. The committee is concerned by reports that the SIV
application process may be hampered by a breakdown in
interagency coordination resulting in undue delay, needless
stress on applicants, and a sizable drop in SIV admissions
during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2018.

Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran

Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1221)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority under section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) until December 31, 2020.
The recommended provision would also limit the obligation
and expenditure of more than $450.0 million of the funds
available for activities under the section 1236 authority until
the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense
committees a report that describes the roles, missions, and
responsibilities of any future U.S. military presence in Iraq,
provides information on anticipated funding requirements, and
provides a transition plan for operational sustainment
activities of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) for fiscal years
after fiscal year 2019.
The committee recognizes the significant progress and
achievements of the ISF in the campaign against the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), including the recapture of
numerous ISIS strongholds. Furthermore, the committee supports
continued engagement and cooperation with the ISF and the
Government of Iraq to secure these gains via the ISF's
continued pursuit of remaining ISIS elements, enhanced border
security, stabilization of liberated areas, and the promotion
of equitable governance. In light of ISIS's gains in the wake
of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, the
committee seeks greater clarity from the Department of Defense
(DOD) on the requirements for an enduring U.S. military
presence in Iraq to prevent a similar resurgence in the future.
The committee also seeks greater clarity from DOD on future
plans to support the ISF given its growing capabilities and
status as the sole legitimate security guarantor in Iraq.
The committee notes that despite progress on the
battlefield, ISIS continues to pose a security threat to Iraq,
including the Iraqi Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish communities and
religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, and to the stability
of the Middle East more broadly. The committee also recognizes
that the lasting defeat of ISIS and ongoing stabilization
efforts are critical to maintaining an Iraq in which all
faiths, sects, and ethnicities are afforded equal protection
and full integration into society. The committee believes that
the United States, in coordination with coalition partners,
should continue necessary support to Iraqi security forces with
a national security mission in their fight against ISIS. The
committee notes that Iraqi security forces with a national
security mission may include Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni tribal
elements, as well as other security forces that are committed
to protecting highly vulnerable ethnic and religious
communities, such as Yazidi, Christian, Assyrian, and Turkoman,
against the ISIS threat. As requirements are identified and
validated, the committee urges the department to provide
security assistance to such forces serving a national security
mission in an expeditious and responsive manner.

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the
vetted Syrian opposition (sec. 1222)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291), as most recently amended by section 1223 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91), through December 31, 2019. The provision would
also limit the obligation or expenditure of funds for
activities under section 1209 until the President submits the
report on United States strategy required under section 1221 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91) and the Secretary of Defense submits a
detailed report to the congressional defense committees
describing the intended use of this authority during fiscal
year 2019, including the forces to be trained and equipped, for
what purposes, and the planned level of engagement between such
forces and U.S personnel. Lastly, the provision would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a certification every 120
days related to the activities conducted by partner forces
trained and equipped under this authority.
The committee is deeply concerned by the lack of clarity
and conflicting messages from administration officials related
to the Middle East and, specifically, Syria. The committee
recognizes the significant progress made by the U.S and our
partners against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in
Syria, including the liberation of nearly all territory
previously held by the group, but the committee believes that
the activities of the U.S. military in Syria are not adequately
integrated into a broader strategy designed to stabilize Syria
and address the factors that gave rise to ISIS. The committee
notes that the influence of Russia and Iran have expanded in
Syria at the expense of American interests and that General
Joseph L. Votel, Commander of U.S. Central Command, testified
on March 13, 2018, that the Assad regime is ``ascendant.''
Simultaneously, the United States' support for some partner
forces in Syria has created significant tension with Turkey, a
North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally.
The committee notes that the President's Fiscal Year 2019
Budget Request includes $300 million to continue the training
and equipping of vetted opposition forces in Syria, yet the
President has publicly expressed his intent to remove U.S.
forces from Syria in the near future. This inconsistency,
paired with the administration's failure to submit the report
on the United States strategy for Syria required by section
1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91), inhibit the committee's ability to
sufficiently consider the continuation of this authority for
fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee urges the
administration to promptly provide details necessary for the
Congress to adequately evaluate the requirement for this
authority and how it contributes to the accomplishment of U.S.
objectives in Syria.

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec.
1223)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-
I) for one year. The provision would also limit the obligation
or expenditure of more than 25 percent of funds available for
fiscal year 2019 pending the submission of the report on the
United States strategy in Iraq required by the Joint
Explanatory Statement on the National Defense Authorization of
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and a plan for
normalization of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq to
conform to other similar embassy-based entities, including the
transition of funding from the Department of Defense to the
Department of State by the beginning of fiscal year 2020. The
committee notes that the transition plan submitted by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to the Joint Explanatory
Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) failed to provide the
level of detail required.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit to the congressional defense and
foreign relations committees a report, not later than September
1, 2018, that addresses the following: (1) A description of
OSC-I's mission and how it relates to the missions of other
U.S. military personnel in Iraq, including those operating
under the command of Combined Joint Task Force-Operation
Inherent Resolve; (2) A description of activities undertaken by
OSC-I to date; (3) An assessment of OSC-I's capabilities to
perform defense institution building activities; (4) An
evaluation of whether Department of Defense goals, objectives,
plans, and guidance for executing security cooperation programs
in Iraq through OSC-I are sufficient; (5) An evaluation of the
efficacy of OSC-I's organizational and funding model compared
to models of other offices of security cooperation; (6) An
assessment of the adequacy of the plan to transition activities
funded by the Department of Defense under OSC-I to other
departments and agencies required by the Joint Explanatory
Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328); and (7) Any other
matters deemed relevant by the Comptroller General.

Syria Study Group (sec. 1224)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
Syria Study Group tasked with providing a report with findings
and recommendations on the military and diplomatic strategy of
the United States with respect to the conflict in Syria. The
Syria Study Group would submit the report not later than June
30, 2019, to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the
minority leader of the House of Representatives.

Modification of annual report on military power of Iran (sec. 1225)

The committee recommends a provision that would add
additional elements to the annual report on the military power
of Iran required under section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), to
include information on the Government of Iran's military
cooperation with the Russian Federation, support to the Houthis
in Yemen, and its involvement in the trafficking of weapons and
weapons systems to certain countries.

Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United
States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1231)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2019 section 1232 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328),
which prohibits funds authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense from being used for bilateral military-
to-military cooperation between the United States and the
Russian Federation without certain certifications by the
Secretary of Defense, made in coordination with the Secretary
of State, or unless certain waiver conditions are met. The
provision would also clarify that the limitation shall not be
construed to limit bilateral military-to-military dialogue
between the United States and the Russian Federation for the
purposes of reducing the risk of conflict.

Limitation on availability of funds relating to sovereignty of the
Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1232)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated or made available by this
Act for fiscal year 2019 for the Department of Defense to
implement any activity that recognizes the sovereignty of the
Russian Federation over Crimea.

Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1233)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2021 the authority under section 1250 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) as amended by section 1234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91) for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to provide security assistance, including
defensive lethal assistance, and intelligence support to
military and other security forces of the Government of
Ukraine. The provision would authorize the use of up to $200.0
million in fiscal year 2019 to provide security assistance to
Ukraine.
The committee continues to believe that defense
institutional reforms are critical to sustaining capabilities
developed using security assistance provided under this and
other authorities. Therefore, the provision would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of 50 percent of the funds available
in fiscal year 2019 under this authority until the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies
that Ukraine has taken substantial action to make defense
institutional reforms. With respect to the certification on
Ukrainian defense institutional reforms, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider, among other
factors, whether the Government of Ukraine has enacted
legislation that ensures a solid legal basis for the
implementation of defense reforms consistent with Ukraine's
Strategic Defense Bulletin.
The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to
consider, as part of the certification process, defense
institutional reforms that promote more efficient use of
defense resources, which will ultimately enable a more
effective defense of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and allow Ukraine to achieve its full potential as a
strategic partner of the United States. Therefore, the
committee urges the Department of Defense to encourage the
Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to institutionalize a formal
internal control measures program and a risk management
framework to identify, prioritize, report, and mitigate
operational and financial risk before it impairs the strategic
objectives of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The committee also urges the Department of Defense to
encourage Ukroboronprom, Ukraine's state defense concern, to
initiate an audit of its financial statements and a corporate
governance review that are in strict accordance with
international auditing and accounting standards.
The committee recognizes that fulfilling the promises of
the Euromaidan and achieving stability, security, and
prosperity for all Ukrainians ultimately depends on effectively
countering corruption. The committee commends the efforts of
the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and
encourages the Government of Ukraine to ensure NABU and other
anti-corruption institutions in Ukraine are fully supported,
resourced, and defended. The committee also urges the
Government of Ukraine to establish an independent anti-
corruption court in line with the recommendations of the Venice
Commission. While the committee welcomes the establishment of
Ukraine's electronic asset declaration system as an important
step for greater transparency, the committee encourages the
Government of Ukraine to take appropriate actions to ensure
this system does not place unnecessary burdens or pressure on
civil society, especially those individuals dedicated to
achieving greater transparency and accountability in Ukraine.
The committee remains deeply concerned by the continuing
aggression of Russia and Russian-led separatist forces in
Ukraine. The committee welcomes the delivery of Javelin
Missiles and Javelin Command Launch Units to Ukraine, which
sends a strong signal of the United States' commitment to the
defense of allies and partners. The committee continues to
emphasize the importance of providing security assistance and
intelligence support, including defensive lethal assistance, to
the Government of Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its
sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Sense of Senate on relocation of Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex
(sec. 1234)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that in consideration of any future plans,
including the conduct of any analysis of alternatives,
regarding the relocation of U.S. European Command's Joint
Intelligence Analysis Complex, the Secretary of Defense should
maintain its geographic location within the United Kingdom and
its collocation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Intelligence Fusion Center.

Sense of Senate on enhancing deterrence against Russian aggression in
Europe (sec. 1235)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that in order to protect the national
security of the United States, it is the policy of the United
States to pursue an integrated approach to strengthening the
defense of allies and partners in Europe as part of a broader
strategy backed by all elements of United States power to deter
and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression. The provision
would also express the sense of the Senate that in order to do
so, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State and in consultation with the Commander, U.S.
European Command, should consider specific steps to improve
U.S. combat capability and capacity in Europe, increase U.S.
forward presence in Europe, maintain robust security assistance
for allies and partners in Europe, promote reforms within the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and enhance
multilateral security cooperation among U.S. partners and
allies, including between NATO and the European Union.
The provision would primarily address activities to be
conducted by the Secretary of Defense related to conventional
deterrence. However, the committee recognizes that a
comprehensive strategy to deter Russian aggression requires a
whole-of-government approach, and must address Russian malign
influence activities, which pose an urgent threat to democratic
institutions, including in the United States, and to stability
in Europe.
The committee believes a comprehensive, integrated approach
to strengthen the capabilities of allies and partners in Europe
to deter and defend against the Russian hybrid threat is
urgently needed. Russian aggression utilizing the full spectrum
of national power threatens our most vulnerable European allies
and partners and continues to result in harm to civilians, the
suppression of human rights, loss of faith in democracy, and
the undermining of the sovereignty of Russia's neighbors. In
particular, the committee condemns the ongoing Russian
violations of the territorial integrity of Georgia over
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Ukraine over Crimea and
Donbass.
Not later than March 1, 2019, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy shall provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the Department of Defense's
strategy for enhancing deterrence against Russian aggression by
strengthening the defense of allies and partners in Europe,
including the Department's consideration and/or implementation
of the specific steps described in the provision.

Technical amendments related to NATO Support and Procurement
Organization and related NATO agreements (sec. 1236)

The committee recommends a provision that would revise
section 2350d of title 10, United States Code and section
2761(e)(3) of title 22, United States Code to reflect the
current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
organizational structure and would permit NATO agency reform
processes to apply U.S. statutory provisions to the updated
NATO organization.

Report on security cooperation between the Russian Federation and Cuba,
Nicaragua, and Venezuela (sec. 1237)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to submit a report
not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act
on security cooperation between the Russian Federation and
Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to the appropriate congressional
committees.

Sense of Senate on countering Russian malign influence (sec. 1238)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State should urgently prioritize the completion of
a comprehensive strategy to counter Russian malign influence
and submit to Congress the report required by section 1239A of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91).
Russian aggression below the level of direct military
conflict continues to be an immediate and urgent threat to the
United States, its allies, and partners. The Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence recently confirmed the unanimous
assessment of the intelligence community in January 2017 that
``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.'' In
February 2018, then-Director of Central Intelligence Michael
Pompeo testified that, with regard to Russian interference in
the 2018 mid-term elections, ``[W]e have seen Russian activity
and intentions to have an impact on the next election cycle
here.'' Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats
testified at that same hearing that Russia ``will conduct
bolder and more disruptive cyber operations during the next
year'' and that Russia ``will work to use cyber operations to
achieve strategic objectives unless they face clear
repercussions for their cyber operations.''
The actions that the U.S. Government has taken to date have
not succeeded in deterring Russia from engaging in asymmetric
aggression. In February of this year, then-Commander, U.S.
Cyber Command, Admiral Michael Rogers, testified that
``President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion there's
little price to pay here.'' In addition, then-National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster said in April 2018 with respect to
Russia, ``We have failed to impose sufficient costs.''
The committee is concerned that the U.S. government
continues to lack a unified, whole-of-government strategy to
impose real costs on Vladimir Putin and his regime in order to
deter future Russian malign aggression. In March 2018,
Commander, U.S. European Command, General Curtis Scaparrotti,
testified, ``I don't believe there's an effective unification
across the interagency with the energy and the focus that we
could attain.'' The absence of a comprehensive strategy
persists despite the requirement under section 1239A of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91) for the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State
to develop and report to Congress on such an approach. The
strategy must be coordinated at the highest levels of
government and integrate all tools of national power, bringing
together military, diplomatic, cyber, informational, financial,
and economic measures to counter Russian malign influence.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and Secretary
of State to dedicate all necessary resources to complete the
strategy and submit the required report without delay.

Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region

Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia Maritime
Security Initiative (sec. 1241)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to: redesignate the
Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative as the Indo-Pacific
Maritime Security Initiative; add Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as
recipient countries of assistance and training; add India as a
covered country eligible for payment of certain incremental
expenses; and extend the authority under the section through
December 31, 2025.
The committee continues to strongly support efforts under
the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at
enhancing the capabilities of regional partners to more
effectively exercise control over their maritime territory and
to deter adversaries. The committee is encouraged by the
progress that has been made under the initiative, and notes
that to date, the Department of Defense has utilized the
authority under section 1263 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as
amended, to support specified partner capacity-building efforts
in the region, to include the provision of training,
sustainment support, and participation in multilateral
engagements. The committee recognizes that the initiative was
designed to support a long-term capacity building effort, which
will require increased resources in future years as
requirements are established and refined, as programs mature,
and as the regional security environment continues to evolve.
The committee believes the Department's efforts to improve
maritime domain awareness and maritime security should be fully
integrated into a U.S. strategy for a free and open Indo-
Pacific. Therefore, the committee supports redesignating the
authority under section 1263 as the Indo-Pacific Maritime
Security Initiative, the inclusion of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
as recipient countries, and the addition of India as a covered
country to encourage its participation in regional security
initiatives of this kind. Furthermore, as a demonstration of
the United States' commitment to allies and partners in the
region, the committee supports the extension of the Indo-
Pacific Maritime Security Initiative through the end of 2025.
Beyond the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the
committee encourages the Department to make use of the full
complement of security cooperation authorities available to the
Department, particularly those under section 1241 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328), to enhance the capabilities of foreign security
partners in South and Southeast Asia to protect mutual security
interests.

Modification of annual report on military and security developments
involving the People's Republic of China (sec. 1242)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), and modify the annual
report on military and security developments involving the
People's Republic of China.
While significant attention has been focused on Russian
malign influence in recent years, the committee is also
concerned by China's increasingly active influence operations,
which exploit the openness of democratic systems, including in
the United States. Therefore, among other elements that would
be added to the matters included in the annual report for
analyses and forecasts, the provision would add efforts by
China to influence the media, cultural institutions, business,
and academic and policy communities of the United States to be
more favorable to its security and military strategy and
objectives.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
(DOD) is not the agency primarily responsible for countering
Chinese malign influence in the United States. However, the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine how
DOD can make appropriate use of existing authorities and
resources to support interagency efforts to counter Chinese
malign influence. For example, the committee is concerned about
China's use of Confucius Institutes-which are under the
supervision of Hanban, a Chinese state agency-as a tool of
malign influence at American universities. Multiple reports by
academic organizations have highlighted the threat to academic
freedom and open debate posed by Confucius Institutes, and have
called on universities to terminate or substantially
renegotiate agreements with Hanban. In order to protect free
inquiry and free expression, the Secretary of Defense could
examine whether DOD should terminate research and development
partnerships with universities that fail to terminate or
substantially renegotiate agreements with Hanban.

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1243)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the importance of a strong U.S. defense
relationship with Taiwan.

Redesignation and modification of sense of Congress and initiative for
the Indo-Asia-Pacific region (sec. 1244)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) by redesignating the
``Indo-Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative'' as the ``Indo-
Pacific Stability Initiative'' and making modifications to
emphasize the initiative's alignment with the National Defense
Strategy and its focus on minimizing the risk of executing the
contingency plans of the Department of Defense. The provision
would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Commander, United States Pacific Command, to submit a
future years plan on activities and resources of the initiative
no later than March 1, 2019.

Prohibition on participation of the People's Republic of China in Rim
of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises (sec. 1245)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from enabling or facilitating the
participation of the People's Republic of China in any Rim of
the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary
certifies to the congressional defense committees that China
has ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China
Sea, removed all weapons from its land reclamation sites, and
established a consistent 4-year track record of taking actions
toward stabilizing the region.

Assessment of and report on geopolitical conditions in the Indo-Pacific
region (sec. 1246)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense to select and enter into an
agreement with an entity independent of the Department of
Defense to conduct an assessment of the geopolitical conditions
in the Indo-Pacific region that are necessary for the
successful implementation of the National Defense Strategy. At
a minimum, the provision would require the assessment to
address the geopolitical conditions in the Indo-Pacific region,
including any change in economic and political relations, that
are necessary to support United States military requirements
for forward defense, extensive forward basing, and alliance
formation and strengthening. The provision would require that
the independent entity selected submit a report on the results
of the assessment to the appropriate congressional committees
not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The committee has emphasized the importance of translating
strategy into force capabilities and posture through the
budgeting and acquisition processes within the Department of
Defense. It is equally important and necessary to examine the
requirements that military strategy imposes on diplomacy and
other activities of the government as a whole. A military
strategy that relies on heavier forward deployment and expanded
basing structures and access could foreseeably require
significant changes in relations with nations in the region,
which has implications for U.S. policy concerning trade,
security assistance, foreign aid, economic investment, and
diplomacy. Likewise, broadening and deepening alliances may
require changes in military strategy. For example, alliance
credibility and cohesion in the Indo-Pacific region could
necessitate that the United States commit to a robust forward
defense in the Indo-Pacific region, which would require that
U.S. and allied air, naval, and ground forces would have to
develop capabilities and concepts of operations to survive and
operate within the range of ballistic and cruise missiles.

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship (sec. 1247)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should strengthen
and enhance its major defense partnership with India and work
toward mutual security objectives.

Sense of Senate on strategic importance of maintaining commitments
under Compacts of Free Association (sec. 1248)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that maintaining the commitments of the
United States under the Compacts of Free Association is of
vital strategic importance to the national security interests
of the United States.
The committee notes that under compacts with the Freely
Associated States (FAS), the Federated States of Micronesia,
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau, the U.S. has
exclusive military use rights in these countries in exchange
for the defense of the FAS. These territories were once used by
the U.S. for nuclear weapons testing, and, according to the
Department of Defense, the compacts have enabled it to maintain
critical access in the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, the
United States' Compacts of Free Association (COFA) are critical
to strengthening partnerships and maintaining commitments in
the Indo-Pacific Theater. It is the sense of the Senate that
these partnerships and commitments are of vital strategic
importance to the national security interests of the United
States.

Sense of the Senate on United States military forces on the Korean
Peninsula (sec. 1249)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the presence of United States military
forces on the Korean Peninsula and across the Indo-Pacific
region continues to play a critical role in safeguarding the
peaceful and stable rules-based international order. The
provision would also express that the significant removal of
United States military forces from the Korean peninsula is a
non-negotiable item as it relates to the complete, verifiable,
and irreversible denuclearization of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea.

Subtitle F--Reports

Report on military and coercive activities of the People's Republic of
China in the South China Sea (sec. 1251)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to submit to the congressional defense committees and
release to the public, a report on the military and coercive
activities of China in the South China Sea in connection with
such activity immediately after the commencement of any
significant reclamation or militarization activity by the
People's Republic of China in the South China Sea, including
any significant military deployment or operation or
infrastructure construction.
The committee is concerned that sufficient information has
not been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding
China's reclamation and militarization activities of China in
the South China Sea. Therefore, the committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to determine that the public interest in
selective declassification of China's activities in the South
China Sea outweighs the potential damage from disclosure. The
Secretary should consider mandating that the directors of
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense
Intelligence Agency provide the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research (INR) at the State Department with declassified
aircraft-generated imagery and supporting analysis describing
Chinese activities of concern. The committee also urges that
the State Department brief and distribute the reports to the
media and throughout Southeast Asia.

Report on terrorist use of human shields (sec. 1252)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act, on the use of human shields by terrorist groups to protect
otherwise lawful targets from attack and efforts to incorporate
lessons learned to address the challenge posed by the use of
human shields.

Report on Arctic strategies (sec. 1253)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the
Secretary of the Air Force not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the strategy of the Army, Navy, the
Marine Corps, and the Air Force for the Arctic region. The
committee recognizes that the Arctic is a region of growing
strategic importance to the national security interest of the
United States and that the Secretary of Defense should improve
the posture and capabilities of the Department of Defense to
meet the growing array of challenges in the region, with a
particular focus on the People's Republic of China and the
Russian Federation.

Report on permanent stationing of a United States Army brigade combat
team in the Republic of Poland (sec. 1254)

The committee recommends a provision that would require not
later than March 1, 2019, that the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility
and advisability of permanently stationing a United States Army
brigade combat team in the Republic of Poland.

Reports on nuclear capabilities of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (sec. 1255)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of
National Intelligence, to submit to the appropriate committees
a report on the status of the nuclear program of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to establish a baseline of progress
for negotiations with respect to denuclearization. The
provision would require, in the case of an agreement between
the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, the Secretary of Defense to submit a written update to
the required baseline report not later than 60 days after the
date on which the agreement is reached and every 90 days
thereafter.
The provision would also require, not later than 180 days
after the date on which the baseline report is submitted and
every 180 days thereafter, that the written update to the
baseline report include: (1) an assessment of the establishment
of safeguards, other control mechanisms, and other assurances
secured from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to
ensure its activities permitted under any agreement will not be
used to further any nuclear-related military or nuclear
explosive purpose, including research on or development of a
nuclear explosive device; and (2) an assessment of the capacity
of the United States or an international organization,
including the International Atomic Energy Agency, to
effectively access and investigate suspicious sites in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea or allegations of covered
nuclear-related activities, including storage sites for nuclear
weapons.

Report on United States military training opportunities with allies and
partners in the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1256)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should
continue to place emphasis on United States military training
exercises with allies in the Indo-Pacific region. The provision
would also require that, not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on future
United States military training opportunities with allied
partner countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Subtitle G--Others Matters

Modification of authorities relating to acquisition and cross-servicing
agreements (sec. 1261)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2342 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the
use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (ACSAs) to
facilitate transfers of logistics support, supplies, and
services to third-party countries or organizations and clarify
that ACSAs may not provide for, or otherwise constitute by
itself a commitment for, the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces
into hostilities. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report on the
Department's use of the authority to the appropriate committees
of Congress.
The committee acknowledges the value of ACSAs with an array
of partners, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization
allies, parties to bilateral and collective defense treaties
and agreements with the United States, and the wide array of
partners with which the United States cooperates. Such
agreements provide the Department of Defense with flexibility,
access, and support on the basis of full reciprocity in
numerous regions around the world in the furtherance of U.S.
national security interests. ACSAs may also help to enhance
readiness at minimal cost and increase military effectiveness
by allowing partners and allies to practice mutual support
procedures during military exercises.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department has
not kept Congress adequately informed of new ACSAs being signed
with non-NATO member countries or provided sufficient
information with respect to how the Department is ensuring that
U.S.-provided logistics support, supplies, and services are
being fully reimbursed on a reciprocal basis. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to Congress, no later than November 1, 2018,
that evaluates the use of ACSAs by the Department of Defense
(DOD), including: (1) A list of current ACSAs signed by the
United States; (2) The criteria and processes used by DOD to
determine the need for ACSAs with allies and partners; (3) The
extent to which DOD is complying with the requirements of
section 2342 of title 10, United States Code, to account for
support provided under ACSAs and receive reciprocal support or
reimbursements from partner nations; (4) The extent to which
DOD has complied with the requirement of section 2342 of title
10, United States Code, to notify Congress of their intent to
sign an ACSA with a non-NATO member country; (5) Any known
instances of DOD's use of ACSAs as mechanisms for transfers of
logistics support, supplies, and services to third-party
countries for which there is no ACSA currently in place; (6)
Recommendations for improving DOD's administration of the ACSA
authority; and (7) Any other matters deemed relevant by the
Comptroller General.

Extension of authority for transfer of amounts for Global Engagement
Center (sec. 1262)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
one year the transfer authority contained in section 1287(e)(1)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
relating to the Global Engagement Center (GEC).
The committee strongly supports the mission of the GEC to
counter false and misleading messaging by both state and non-
state adversaries and notes the importance of integrating
military and nonmilitary tools of statecraft to address these
challenges. The committee believes continuation of the transfer
authority provided by this provision helps to facilitate such
whole-of-government approaches.
The committee notes that the Departments of State and
Defense signed a memorandum of understanding on February 26,
2018, to facilitate the transfer of $40.0 million for the
purposes of countering propaganda and disinformation from
foreign nations, more than a year after such transfers were
authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and after the Intelligence Community publicly
reported Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections. The
committee has significant concern about delayed action on these
issues in the face of a significant and growing threat from
Russia. The committee strongly encourages the Departments of
State and Defense to fully utilize the authorities that have
been provided to more aggressively counter propaganda by Russia
and other state and non-state actors.

Sense of Senate on purchase by Turkey of S-400 air defense system (sec.
1263)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the President should impose and apply
sanctions under the Countering America's Adversaries through
Sanctions Act (Public Law 115-44) against the Republic of
Turkey if it purchases the S-400 air defense system from the
Russian Federation.
The Republic of Turkey is a North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) ally and critical strategic partner of the
United States. The committee recognizes that the United States-
Turkey alliance remains essential for deterring and countering
Russian aggression, countering Iranian malign influence, and
combating terrorism, all of which are priorities of the new
National Defense Strategy. Moreover, the primary beneficiaries
of any rupture in the United States-Turkey alliance would be
Russia and Iran. Thus, the committee urges the administration
to continue working with the Government of Turkey to develop
cooperative approaches to shared challenges, including
counterterrorism cooperation concerning the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK), defeating ISIS, the situation in Syria, NATO
posture and activities in the Black Sea, and countering Iranian
malign influence, among others.
However, the committee remains concerned about a number of
issues, which threaten to undermine the foundation for a strong
and sustainable United States-Turkey alliance. For example,
Turkey's purchase of the S-400 air defense system from the
Russian Federation would be incompatible with Turkey's
commitments as a NATO ally. Not only would the purchase put
billions of dollars into the Russian military industrial
complex and give more profits to Vladimir Putin's corrupt
network of kleptocrats, it would subsidize Russian aggression
on Turkey's periphery, including in Syria and Ukraine. The
committee urges the Government of Turkey to abandon any plans
for the purchase of the S-400 air defense system from the
Russian Federation. At the same time, the committee urges the
administration to work with the Government of Turkey to
identify alternatives to the S-400 air defense system that meet
Turkey's defense requirements.
Beyond defense, there are other concerning issues that have
a negative impact on United States-Turkey relations. The
committee has serious concerns about cases against U.S.
citizens who have been arrested under Turkey's state of
emergency, including Pastor Andrew Brunson, and calls for their
immediate release. The committee also remains disturbed by the
violence that took place outside the Turkish ambassador's
residence in Washington, D.C. on May 16, 2017, and believes the
perpetrators should be brought to justice under United States
law. More broadly, the committee is concerned by indications of
deteriorating respect for human rights and the rule of law in
Turkey. As an important member of NATO, the committee calls on
the Government of Turkey to uphold its obligations under the
North Atlantic Treaty, which commits NATO allies to ``safeguard
the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples,
founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and
the rule of law.''

Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in national
security interest of the United States (sec. 1264)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State and in consultation with the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide
certain support for the stabilization activities of other
Federal agencies.

Enhancement of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation (sec. 1265)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12001(d) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) to extend the authority for the
War Reserves Stockpile Ammunition-Israel through September 30,
2023. The provision would also authorize the President, acting
through the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to
conduct a joint assessment of the quantity of precision guided
munitions necessary for Israel to counter regional threats. The
provision would also amend the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to
require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe procedures for
the rapid acquisition and deployment of supplies and associated
support services urgently needed to support production of
precision guided munitions.
The committee believes that the United States should
continue to work closely with Israel to research, develop, and
eventually procure the necessary capabilities to effectively
detect, map, monitor, operate in, and neutralize underground
tunnels and share successful tactics to engage in effective
tunnel warfare. Therefore, not later than February 1, 2019, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with Israel's Ministry of Defense, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on anti-tunneling cooperation
with Israel, which shall include the following elements: (1) An
identification of specific capability gaps of the United
States, the capability gaps of Israel, and any shared
capability gaps with respect to detecting, mapping, monitoring,
operating in, and neutralizing underground tunnels; (2) An
identification of cooperative projects that would address those
capability gaps and mutually benefit and strengthen the
security of the United States and Israel; (3) An assessment of
the projected cost for research and development efforts and the
timeline for the completion of each cooperative project; (4) An
assessment of the percentage of U.S. funds for cooperative
projects that could be realistically and efficiently spent in
the United States; (5) An identification of anti-tunnel
capability gaps of the United States not likely to be addressed
through cooperative projects; and (6) An assessment of the
projected costs for procurement and fielding of jointly
developed anti-tunneling capabilities.

Certifications regarding actions by Saudi Arabia in Yemen (sec. 1266)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the expenditure of funds to provide authorized in-flight
refueling to Saudi or Saudi-led coalition non-United States
aircraft conducting missions in Yemen pending certifications by
the Secretary of State that the Government of Saudi Arabia is
taking certain actions related to the civil war in Yemen. The
provision includes several exceptions and provides for a
national security waiver that may be exercised by the Secretary
of State.

Sense of the Senate on support for G5 Sahel Joint Force countries (sec.
1267)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on support for the G5 Sahel Joint Force
countries.

Sense of Congress on broadening and expanding strategic partnerships
and allies (sec. 1268)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States manages multiple
strategic challenges through the enduring strength of its
alliances and that it remains resolved to forge new alliances
and partnerships in order to address shared challenges in
Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and throughout the world.

Removal of Turkey from the F-35 program (sec. 1269)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the transfer of title for any F-35 aircraft to the Government
of the Republic of Turkey until such time as the Secretary of
Defense submits to the appropriate congressional committees a
plan to remove the Government of the Republic of Turkey from
participation in the F-35 program, to include industrial and
military aspects of the program.

Increase in minimum amount of obligations from the Special Defense
Acquisition Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 1270)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the amount of annual obligations from the Special Defense
Acquisition Fund for the procurement and stocking of precision
guided munitions from 20 percent to 25 percent.

Items of Special Interest

Advise and assist efforts in Afghanistan

In August 2017, the President announced a new South Asia
strategy that was accompanied by an increase of U.S. and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan in
support of a renewed effort to advise and assist Afghan forces
as part of the NATO Resolute Support Mission. As part of the
increase, the Army has deployed a Security Force Assistance
Brigade (SFAB), a new unit created to advise and assist foreign
military forces. The development of the Afghan National Defense
and Security Forces (ANDSF) has been a central element of
successive U.S. strategies in Afghanistan and the Department of
Defense (DOD) has utilized a variety of approaches to execute
that strategy. The committee is aware of the challenges DOD has
faced in prior efforts to advise and assist various ANDSF
elements. For example, in 2013, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report, ``GAO-13-381 Security Force Assistance:
More Detailed Planning and Improved Access to Information
Needed to Guide Efforts of Advisor Teams in Afghanistan,''
found that advisor teams in Afghanistan needed clearer guidance
regarding the end states, objectives, and milestones they were
expected to achieve as well as improved access to information
to guide their efforts. The GAO also discussed challenges DOD
faced in fulfilling requirements for advisor personnel,
including the Army's decision to use personnel from non-
deployed brigade combat teams to form advisor teams. The
committee remains concerned about the efficacy of U.S. advise
and assist efforts in Afghanistan, particularly in light of the
increased emphasis on those efforts under the new South Asia
strategy. Additionally, the committee is concerned by the
compressed timeline under which the first SFAB was created,
trained and equipped, and deployed to Afghanistan. The
committee understands that the decision to accelerate the
fielding of this unit created a number of challenges, including
manning shortages, the scaling back of training, and
reprogramming requests for essential equipment. Accordingly,
the Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to evaluate the following issues: (1) The extent to
which DOD, in conjunction with NATO, has defined advisor team
missions, goals, and objectives; (2) The extent to which
advisors were trained and equipped for their specific missions
in Afghanistan; (3) The ability of the Army's Security Force
Assistance Brigade to meet current and future advisor
requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere; (4) What
adjustments, if any, are being made to the manning, training
and equipping, and deployment of the second and third SFABs;
and (5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to the advise and assist mission in
Afghanistan.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
not later than November 1, 2018 on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing.

Clarification of authority to waive certain expenses for activities of
regional centers for security studies

The committee notes the important contribution of the
regional centers for security studies for building security
cooperation with allies and partners globally. The regional
centers advance U.S. security priorities by promoting
multilateral dialogue on a broad spectrum of shared security
issues. The United States benefits from the participation of
national security leaders from partner nations in the exchange
of ideas promoted by the regional centers. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense is authorized to provide
reimbursements for the logistical expenses associated with the
participation of foreign government officials in regional
center activities. However, the committee understands that
there may be concerns with the processes and associated
timelines for approving such reimbursements that could impact
participation of foreign government officials. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in
coordination with appropriate officials from the Department of
State, to provide the congressional defense committees a
briefing on the authorities and procedures for making
reimbursements for the logistical expenses associated with the
participation of foreign government officials in regional
center activities. The briefing should be provided no later
than October 1, 2018.

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies

A key component of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
efforts to build the institutional capacity of foreign security
forces is defense legal institution building. Building partner
security forces' legal institutional capacity serves the U.S.
goals of promoting accountability, the rule of law, respect for
civilian control of the military, enhancing compliance with
human rights and the law of armed conflict. In this regard, the
Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) is the
principal resource within the DOD security cooperation
enterprise for helping to build the legal capacity of foreign
security forces through mobile programs deployed globally and
resident courses at Naval Station Newport in Newport, Rhode
Island.
Over the last several years, the mission and activities of
DIILS have expanded significantly, as U.S. forces increasingly
work by, with, and through partner security forces. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on
December, 2016, titled, ``Rule of Law Assistance: DOD Should
Assess Workforce Size of Defense Institute of International
Legal Studies'' (GAO-17-118), which stated that between fiscal
years 2013 and 2016, DIILS assistance activities grew by nearly
50 percent, and that trend has continued. At the same time, the
GAO report found that DIILS staffing during this same period
had remained essentially static. The Institute has initiated
hiring in fiscal year 2018 to begin to address this staffing
shortfall.
In addition, the number of resident courses offered at the
Naval Station Newport has increased significantly over the last
several years. In 2017, the DIILS resident course program
hosted over 200 participants representing over 80 countries
from all the Geographic Combatant Commands. However, the
limited classroom space available to DIILS presents challenges
for further expansion of resident courses to meet the growing
demand.
Another important driver for DIILS's expanding mission has
been the security cooperation reforms enacted in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The
consolidated ``Section 333'' authority under that Act
emphasizes the importance of building defense institutional
capacity of friendly foreign forces, particularly at higher
echelons, as part of capacity building programs. DIILS's
mission of providing defense legal institution building
training under Title 10 authorities currently comprises more
than one third of DIILS's events, and the committee expects
that this mission will continue to grow as DIILS aims to build
sustained capacity in partner security forces over the long-
term.
In order to ensure DIILS is appropriately resourced to meet
growing requirements for defense legal institution building,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
review of the facility requirements for DIILS at the Naval
Station Newport. This review shall include consideration of the
full range of options for optimizing DIILS capacity to carry
out its current and expected mission, including an expanding
role in defense legal institution building through both mobile
and resident courses. The options shall include: (1) The impact
of maintaining the status quo on DIILS ability to carry out its
mission; (2) The costs and benefits of renovating the existing
buildings available to DIILS for its administrative offices and
classroom spaces; (3) The costs and benefits of consolidating
DIILS administrative offices and classroom spaces in a newly
constructed, single facility with sufficient capacity to
accommodate DIILS's expanding mission; and (4) Consideration of
using any other installation or facility authority deemed
appropriate by the Secretary. The committee directs the
Secretary to report on the findings of this review, including a
recommended course of action, to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 30, 2019.

Human rights in Burma

The committee condemns the systematic human rights abuses
committed against the Rohingya people in Burma, as well as
attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army militant group.
Amid disturbing reports of widespread sexual assault and
violence against women and girls, starvation, killing, and
forcible deportation, nearly 700,000 men, women, and children
have been forced from their homes. The committee remains
concerned about role of the Burmese military in the violence
and displacement inflicted on the Rohingya and other ethnic
minorities in Burma.
The committee calls on the Government of Burma to: (1)
Cease hostilities against the Rohingya in Burma and take
proactive steps to prevent further violence; (2) Ensure the
Burmese military adheres to international human rights
standards; (3) Carry out meaningful and comprehensive
investigations of credible reports of human rights violations,
including reports of conflict-related sexual and gender-based
violence; (4) Take steps to hold accountable those in the
Burmese military responsible for human rights violations; (5)
Allow immediate and unfettered humanitarian access to
communities in areas affected by conflict, including Rohingya
communities in Rakhine State; and (6) Cooperate with the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant
United Nations agencies to ensure the protection of displaced
persons and the safe and voluntary return of Rohingya refugees
and internally displaced persons.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to direct the
resources necessary for ensuring full implementation of section
362 of title 10, United States Code, which prohibits the use of
funds for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a
unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense
has credible information that the unit has committed a gross
violation of human rights. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to alert the appropriate congressional
committees if additional resources are required in order to
ensure full implementation. The committee also encourages the
Secretary of Defense to focus military-to-military exchanges
with the Burmese military, including participation in regional
humanitarian and disaster relief exercises, on human rights and
necessary military reforms to promote transparency,
accountability, and adherence to international human rights
standards.

Matters relating to Kosovo

The committee fully supports efforts to normalize relations
between Kosovo and Serbia through the European Union-led, U.S.-
supported dialogue process. Normalization of relations between
Kosovo and Serbia is in the interest of Kosovars and Serbs
alike. Furthermore, it is vital to Kosovo and Serbia's shared
European future and essential to stability in the Western
Balkans.
The committee condemns the murder of Oliver Ivanovic on
January 16, 2018. The committee urges the governments of Kosovo
and Serbia to ensure the perpetrators of this crime are brought
to justice, and to protect all those who are willing to work
towards reconciliation between Kosovars and Serbs in order to
improve the lives of citizens in both countries.
The committee commends Kosovo's recent passage of a border
demarcation agreement with Montenegro. The committee hopes this
agreement will enable Kosovo to move forward with the European
Union visa liberalization process and provide incentives to
advance other reforms, which are necessary to achieve Kosovo's
integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions.
The committee continues to support U.S. assistance to the
Kosovo Security Force as it makes the gradual transition to a
multi-ethnic army for the Republic of Kosovo. The committee
believes it is critical that the transformation of the Kosovo
Security Forces to the Kosovo Armed Forces take place through
an inclusive and transparent process that complies with
Kosovo's constitution, respects the rights and concerns of all
of Kosovo's citizens, promotes regional security and stability,
and supports Kosovo's aspirations for eventual full membership
in NATO.

Notifications for sensitive military operations

The committee's support for sensitive military operations
rests, in part, on our ability to conduct regular and
continuous oversight of those operations. Notifications from
the Department are fundamental to that oversight, and they are
also required by section 130f of title 10, United States Code.
However, despite the Department's guidelines regarding
notifications, recent notifications have been both untimely and
insufficiently detailed for the committee to conduct necessary
oversight. Moreover, the committee is concerned that the
Department has used an exception to the reporting requirement,
which was included at the Department's request, in a way that
is inconsistent with congressional intent. Therefore, the
committee directs the Department to comply with the following
requirements for notifications of sensitive military operations
going forward.
First, notifications must be timely. Section 130f of title
10, United States Code, requires written notification of a
sensitive military operation within 48 hours. Yet the committee
has repeatedly been notified outside that window or without the
required notification in writing. Oral notifications are
appreciated but are not a substitute for compliance with these
statutory requirements.
Second, the Department must notify the Congress of
sensitive operations in line with congressional intent. A
reliance on the limited exception contained in section 130f
continues to result in delayed or complete lack of
notification. This is in direct conflict with congressional
intent.
Third, notifications must be sufficiently detailed to allow
the committee to understand the risks, benefits, and
consequences of sensitive military operations. The
notifications received from the Department have been
increasingly vague. In order for the Congress to perform its
Constitutional duties, the committee must understand the
context and intent associated with Department actions. At a
minimum, notifications of sensitive military operations should
include the following:
(1) The legal authority for the operation;
(2) The objectives of the operation, including any
metrics being used to grade the success of the
operation in achieving those objectives;
(3) The number and type of United States military
personnel involved in the operation;
(4) The number and type of United States military
platforms involved in the operation;
(5) The number and type of foreign partner military
personnel involved in the operation, if any;
(6) The planned duration of the operation;
(7) The location of the operation;
(8) A description of the reasons the operation was
conducted, including a description of the threat to be
addressed by the operation and the intelligence
information that precipitated the operation;
(9) Whether any part of the operation was conducted
without the knowledge of the country where the
operation occurred or any other country with a military
presence in the location the operation occurred;
(10) Whether any U.S. persons were the target of, or
harmed during, the operation;
(11) A battle damage assessment of the operation, if
available; and
(12) Any significant diplomatic issues or impacts on
the Department's operations that resulted from the
operation.
If the details described above require the notice to be
classified, it should be submitted in a classified form.
Classification is not a justification for omitting important
details from the notice. Moreover, in the rare case that a
notice contains information that the Department believes must
be closely held within the committee, the Department should
inform the Chairman and Ranking Member of the need for such
handling. The committee, not the Department, will then
determine how to handle that specific issue. The committee, not
the Department, must make its own determinations about how to
conduct the requisite oversight, and under no circumstances
should the Department unilaterally exclude appropriately-
cleared staff from receiving notifications to Congress that are
required by law.

Report on U.S. assistance to the Lebanese Security Forces

The committee recognizes and commends the contributions of
the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Lebanese Internal Security
Forces (ISF) to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, efforts to address the threat posed by other
terrorist organizations, and efforts to secure Lebanon's
borders in recent years. The committee also notes that U.S.
assistance to the LAF is intended, in part, to enable the LAF
to function as the nation's only legitimate security provider
and to support the implementation of the terms of United
Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701 as soon as
practicable. A central challenge to these efforts is the
persistence and influence of Lebanese Hezbollah, which actively
undermines security throughout the Middle East, facilitates the
Government of Iran's destabilizing agenda, and supports war
crimes and acts of terror, while simultaneously acting as a
significant political entity in Lebanon.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a
report, not later than September 1, 2018, on U.S. assistance to
the LAF and ISF. At a minimum, that report shall include: (1) A
description of U.S. objectives in its support to the LAF and
ISF in Lebanon and any progress made towards those objectives;
(2) A description of support to the LAF and ISF since 2013 and
a projection of continued support across the Future Years
Defense Program; (3) An evaluation of the specific actions
taken by the LAF and ISF to implement the terms of UNSCR 1701,
to include descriptions of the scope and trends of LAF and ISF
activities to address progress toward the disarmament of
Hezbollah and other armed groups in Lebanon, the movement and
establishment of Iranian or Hezbollah arms, personnel, and
infrastructure in and through Lebanon through the use of
checkpoints and roadblocks, and other enforcement actions by
such forces to counter related malign activities; (4) An
assessment of the military, political, and economic factors
impacting the ability of the LAF and ISF to enforce the terms
of UNSCR 1701, as described in subsection (3) and the
utilization of U.S. assistance for that purpose; (5) A
description of destabilizing actions by the Government of Iran
in Lebanon and trends of those actions, to include Iran's
material support of Hezbollah's military and political
entities, the status of Iran's influence in Lebanese
institutions including any operational coordination between the
Lebanese security forces, Hezbollah, and Iranian forces, any
efforts by Iran to establish infrastructure for the purposes of
manufacturing or storing weaponry in Lebanon, and efforts by
the Government of Iran in Lebanon to threaten the interests of
the United States and its allies and partners in the region;
(6) An assessment of current and planned end-use monitoring
protocols for U.S. security assistance to the LAF and ISF, to
include detailed descriptions of Lebanese forces' adherence to
those protocols and any specific instances of misuse or
unauthorized transfer of U.S. assistance, if any, along with an
assessment of any risk of future misuse or unauthorized
transfer; and (7) Any other matters deemed relevant by the
Secretary.

Report on WRSA-I Stockpile Quantity Review

The committee values the strategic alliance between the
United States and Israel and supports an increase in the number
of precision guided munitions (PGMs) in the War Reserve Stock
Allies-Israel (WRSA-I). These munitions are intended to be
utilized by the United States, but can also be used by our ally
Israel, should a critical need arise where longer term
procurement of specific munitions may not be an option. While
the stockpile contains many valuable munitions, the committee
is concerned that some critical items requiring long lead-time
for development may not be readily available.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to conduct a review of the number of PGMs
needed to ensure that the United States can counter regional
threats and also to collaborate with the Israeli Ministry of
Defense to gauge its PGM requirements should the U.S. need to
provide immediate assistance. The results from this joint
assessment shall be submitted to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2019. Included in this assessment,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall outline any
challenges in meeting the results of the joint assessment and
provide recommendations to spur the national security
industrial base toward a higher production rate.

Role of Turkey in the F-35 supply chain

The committee continues to monitor with concern the
trajectory of the U.S.-Turkey relationship. The committee is
aware that Turkey plans to buy a large number of F-35s and is a
program partner eligible to become a supplier to the global F-
35 fleet. However, the announced purchase by Turkey of the
Almaz-Antey S-400 system represents the latest in a troubling
series of events affecting relations between the government of
Turkey and the United States. The committee is concerned that
further deterioration in the relationship between the United
States and Turkey could result in disruption of cooperative
programs, such as the F-35. Therefore, the committee requests
that the Department of Defense provide to the congressional
defense committees a briefing no later than February 1, 2019
that shall include: (1) a component-level description of the
current and planned supply chain contributions of Turkey to the
F-35 program, both in manufacturing and in sustainment; and (2)
any components for which Turkey is a sole or majority supplier,
or where the removal of components of Turkish manufacture would
create significant or lasting disruption for the F-35 program.

United States-Mexico military cooperation

The committee recognizes the importance of military
cooperation between the United States and Mexico given their
mutual national security interests, intertwined economies, and
shared values. Furthermore, the committee acknowledges the
Government of Mexico's significant efforts in recent years to
address the challenges posed by transnational criminal
organizations, narcotics and human trafficking, unauthorized
migration, and securing its long, geographically complex
borders. Such efforts benefit not only the United States and
Mexico, but nations throughout Latin America through the
disruption of illicit threat networks that further degrade
internal instability, erode confidence in the governance of
partner nations, and establish pathways that can be exploited
by criminals and terrorist organizations.
With that in mind, the committee strongly supports the
Department of State-led Merida Initiative, which has provided
$2.7 billion in assistance to Mexico since fiscal year 2008 to
combat drug trafficking and support Mexican efforts to support
human rights, combat corruption, and reform its institutions.
The committee also strongly supports Department of Defense-led
military-to-military engagement with Mexico. As General Lori J.
Robinson, former Commander of U.S. Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM), noted in testimony before the committee on
February 15, 2018, this engagement starts at ``the tactical
level and extends through the close ties between USNORTHCOM
senior leadership and SEMAR [Secretaria de Marina] and SEDENA
[Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional].''
The committee applauds recent high-level engagement between
senior leaders of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Government of Mexico. It also notes the success of recent
exercises ranging from U.S. Marine Forces North's provision of
training to over 1,500 Mexican Marines, who are on the
frontlines of combating drug trafficking, to Mexico's
participation in the UNITAS 2017 exercise, during which U.S.
and Mexican forces joined members of 16 other militaries in
Peru to enhance their ability to conduct naval operations and
interoperable amphibious operations, stability operations, and
humanitarian and disaster relief missions in the Western
Hemisphere. Such activities, along with the security
cooperation funding provided by DOD and International Military
Education and Training funds directed by the Department of
State and administered by DOD, are critical to the security of
both Mexico and the United States. The importance of these ties
will only increase given the challenges posed by heroin
cultivation and the proliferation and smuggling of potent
synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, in and through Mexico to
the United States.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to continue to deepen the military-to-
military relations with Mexico through the continued provision
of training and equipment to enhance SEDENA and SEMAR's
capabilities to combat transnational criminal organizations,
regular bilateral engagements on defense with Mexican
leadership, and swift coordination across agencies to approve
training activities and exercises in ways that support and
reinforce U.S. national security policy.

United States policy and strategy in the Western Balkans

The committee affirms that the United States commitment to
a Europe whole, free, and at peace remains ironclad.
Furthermore, the committee recognizes that security and
prosperity in the Western Balkans remain essential for the
success of this vision.
However, the committee recognizes that the region confronts
growing challenges: lagging economic growth, corruption, rising
political tensions within and among states, the threat of
radicalization and terrorism, and malign Russian influence. For
example, in a hearing before the committee on March 8, 2018,
General Curtis Scaparrotti, Commander of U.S. European Command,
testified that the area that most concerned him in relation to
future Russian interference was ``the Balkans.'' He added,
``Russia's at work in the Balkans, and I think we've kind of
taken our eye off the area.'' If unaddressed or unresolved,
these challenges confronting the Western Balkans could have
serious consequences for regional security and prosperity, as
well as for U.S. interests in Europe.
The committee believes the United States needs a clear
policy and strategy for the Western Balkans-one that is
integrated with the European Union's (EU) ``Strategy for the
Western Balkans'' and, most importantly, backed by enhanced,
focused, and sustained engagement by senior political leaders
in the United States. The committee encourages the president to
consider the appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy to
lead and coordinate U.S. diplomatic efforts in the region and
oversee implementation of a U.S. strategy for the region across
the interagency.
The committee believes such a strategy should include
diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to: (1) Support the
sovereign right of the countries of the Western Balkans to
pursue integration into the Euro-Atlantic community through
institutions including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the EU; (2) Counter Russian malign influence in the
region; (3) Integrate U.S. and EU efforts to incentivize
reform, combat corruption, strengthen the rule of law, and hold
regional leaders accountable for results; (4) Enhance military-
to-military engagement between the United States and the
militaries of the Western Balkans countries to promote
interoperability with NATO, civilian control of the military,
procurement reforms, and regional security cooperation; (5)
Promote energy security in the Western Balkans; (6) Support
diplomatic efforts to normalize relations between Serbia and
Kosovo through the EU-led, U.S.-supported dialogue process; (7)
Resolve the dispute between Greece and Macedonia, enabling
Macedonia to move forward with integration into NATO and the
EU; and (8) Align U.S. and EU efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina to
catalyze and advance necessary domestic political reforms.

U.S. Africa Command

In April 2018 testimony before the committee, Secretary of
Defense James Mattis noted, ``Our efforts in Africa are largely
focused on assisting nations facing violent terrorists to
develop their own capability to provide internal security and
mutual support against insurgents and terror groups.'' The
committee believes that the security cooperation efforts of
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) are critical to support the 2018
National Defense Strategy's direction to move towards a ``more
resource sustainable approach'' to combat shared security
threats to the U.S. and our partners.
For example, the committee notes the important role
regional partnerships in the African Union Mission in Somalia
are playing to combat the threat posed by al-Shabaab and other
terrorist threats in Somalia. General Thomas Waldhauser, the
Commander of AFRICOM, stated in testimony that Ethiopia
``remains a longstanding partner and contributes over 4,000
uniformed personnel to the African Union Mission in Somalia,
further advancing regional peace and security efforts in East
Africa.'' Similarly, General Waldhauser noted that Kenya and
Uganda ``continue to develop reconnaissance and surveillance
capabilities to build their capacity for counterterrorism
operations'' against al-Shabaab and other terrorist threats.
Other important regional security cooperation programs,
such as the State Department-led Global Peace Operations
Initiative and the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response
Partnership, are focused on strengthening the capacity,
capabilities, and professionalism of African partners to
support peacekeeping and crisis response operations across the
continent.
In order to absorb and sustain security cooperation
programs such as these, partner nations must build and maintain
accountable and transparent government institutions with a
commitment to civilian control of the military, respect for
human rights, and good governance. The committee encourages
AFRICOM to develop a code of conduct, in conjunction with
African partner nations, to establish a common standard with
regard to issues of defense sector corruption, including a
commitment to equitable, transparent, and accountable defense
institutions, the development and improvement of security-
sector legal capacity, and a commitment to the rule of law.
The committee supports these efforts and encourages AFRICOM
to continue its emphasis on a whole-of-government approach,
leveraging the specific skill sets of interagency partners like
the Department of State, United States Agency for International
Development, and others to synchronize and complement
Department of Defense efforts to build the capability and
capacity of our African partners to strengthen institutions and
develop local solutions to radicalization, destabilization, and
other drivers of conflict that undermine stability and our
shared security interests.

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and
authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal
years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$335.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working capital funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

Consolidation of reporting requirements under the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (sec. 1411)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 11 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling
Act (50 U.S.C. 98h-2) to consolidate reporting requirements.

Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an appropriation of $64.3 million from the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2019 for the
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed Forces Retirement
Home (sec. 1422)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1512 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(24 U.S.C. 412) to include as authorized residents of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (AFRH): (1) Persons with a service-
connected disability incurred in the line of duty in the Armed
Forces; and (2) Certain spouses of residents. The provision
would also delineate persons ineligible to be residents of the
AFRH: (1) Persons discharged or released from military service
under other than honorable conditions; and (2) Persons with
substance abuse or mental health problems, with a limited
exception.
Oversight of health care provided to residents of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1423)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1513A(c) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of
1991 (24 U.S.C. 413a(c)) to revise the duties of the senior
medical advisor to the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) to
require the senior medical advisor to facilitate and monitor
the timely availability to residents of the AFRH such medical,
mental health, and dental care services as such residents may
require at locations other than the AFRH and to monitor
compliance by the facilities of the AFRH with applicable
accreditation and health care standards and requirements.
Modification of authority on acceptance of gifts for the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1424)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraph (1) of section 1515(f) of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 415(f)) to authorize the Chief
Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) to
accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and use any gift,
devise, or bequest, either absolutely or in trust, of real or
personal property, or any income therefrom or other interest
therein, for the benefit of the AFRH. This provision would
allow the AFRH to adopt gift authorities consistent with those
of other Federal Government organizations, which are not
intended to be capitalized by direct appropriations.
Relief for residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home impacted by
increase in fees (sec. 1425)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the removal or release of a resident of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH) as of September 30, 2018, after that
date based solely on the inability of the resident to pay the
amount of any increase in fees applicable to residents that
take effect on October 1, 2018. The provision would require the
Chief Operating Officer of the AFRH to accommodate residents
impacted by the fee structure that takes effect on October 1,
2018, through hardship relief, additional deductions from gross
income, and other appropriate actions.
Limitation on applicability of fee increase for residents of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1426)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
amount of the fee increase for a resident of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH) as of April 9, 2018, of those fees
scheduled to increase on October 1, 2018, to 50 percent of the
fees payable by such resident.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
(sec. 1431)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $113.0 million from the
Defense Health Program to the joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund, created by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center.
Economical and efficient operation of working capital fund activities
(sec. 1432)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Department of Defense to implement workload plans that optimize
the efficiency of the workforce operating within a working
capital fund activity and reduce the rate structure. The
provision would also encourage the working capital fund to
perform reimbursable work for other entities where appropriate.

Items of Special Interest

Assessment on material shortfalls in United States Forces Korea for
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defenses
The committee is encouraged by the increased chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense efforts by
United States Forces Korea (USFK). The committee remains
concerned that there are unknown shortfalls in material needs
for the CBRN mission on the South Korean peninsula. Therefore,
the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, in coordination with USFK, to
submit an assessment, no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, that establishes operational
requirements and shortfalls for early warning systems,
decontamination and tactical disablement operations, collective
protection equipment, weapons of mass destruction
characterization, subterranean operations, and additional areas
that the Secretary deems appropriate.
The committee is also concerned that United States Forces
Korea has not adequately prepared for decontamination efforts
or identified possible limitations in the event of a chemical
weapon attack. Accordingly, the assessment shall include the
Department of Defense's ability to respond to chemical
contamination and the limitation of water availability on the
Korean Peninsula to assist in decontamination.

Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile

The committee is strongly supportive of the recent efforts
by the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) to execute the
acquisition of strategic and critical materials, expand
domestic qualification, and recycle military end items in order
to reclaim strategic materials and rare earth elements.
Given the committee's concern that the funds within the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund have been
significantly depleted and that the fund lacks long-term
financial stability without appropriated funds, the committee
is strongly encouraged by and supportive of the NDS' recent
plan to coordinate a long-term strategy to request Transaction
Fund appropriations in the future years defense program,
coupled with the possible reconfiguration of existing
stockpiles for modern military and strategic requirements.

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
this title and make authorization of appropriations available
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
authorization of appropriations in this section as Overseas
Contingency Operations.
Procurement (sec. 1503)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for procurement activities at the
levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for research, development, test,
and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section
4202 of division D of this Act.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for operation and maintenance
activities at the levels identified in section 4302 of division
D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1506)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for military personnel activities
at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this
Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital
Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of
this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1508)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide at the levels identified
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense identified in section 4502
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program
activities identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.

Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of Overseas
Contingency Operations funding authorized for fiscal year 2019
in this title to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance
with normal reprogramming procedures. This transfer authority
would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary
elsewhere in this Act.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (sec. 1531)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$610.1 million for the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat
Organization. Additionally, the provision would mandate that
none of these funds would be available for obligation or
expenditure to supply training, equipment, supplies, or
services to a foreign country before the date that is 15 days
after the date on which the Secretary of Defense has submitted
to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives a notice detailing the
relevant arrangement.

Budget Items

Tomahawk
The budget request did not include funding for line number
3 of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), for Tomahawk missiles.
On April 13, 2018, the United States fired 69 Tomahawk
missiles into Syria. The committee recommends procuring
Tomahawk missiles to replenish the Navy's inventory of
Tomahawks to account for the missiles used.
Thus, the committee recommends an increase of $82.8 million
to line number 3 of WPN OCO to procure 69 Tomahawk missiles.
Ammunition less than $5 million
The budget request included $211.9 million for Navy
Ammunition Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of which $2.2
million was for LI 15, Ammunition Less than $5 million.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0
million to Navy Ammunition OCO, LI 15 due to excess to need.
JASSM-ER
The budget request included $61.6 million in line number 2
of Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), for the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile
(JASSM).
On April 13, 2018, the United States fired 19 JASSMs in
Syria. The JASSM is no longer in production and has been
replaced with a more capable variant, the Joint Air-Surface
Standoff Missiles Extended Range (JASSM-ER). The committee
recommends procuring JASSM-ERs to replenish the Air Force's
inventory to account for the JASSMs used.
The committee recommends an increase of $22.8 million to
line number 2 of MPAF OCO to procure 19 JASSM-ERs.

Items of Special Interest

Cargo inspections to counter vehicle borne Improvised Explosive Device
(IED) threats

The committee is encouraged that the Department of the Army
is testing and planning to deploy new passive cargo inspection
technologies to address a joint urgent operational need to
counter Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED)
threats. This disruptive technology, which utilizes naturally
occurring cosmic ray muons and electrons, identifies shielded
and unshielded nuclear and radioactive materials; detects
smuggled contraband, including weapons, bomb-making materials,
and illicit goods; and is proven safe for humans, animals, and
food products.
The committee encourages the Army to continue with the
current testing program and supports efforts to deploy the
system at a major U.S. military facility. Further, the
committee requests a briefing 60 days after the enactment of
this Act on the potential future deployments of these next
generation inspection technologies inside and outside the
continental United States. The briefing, which may be provided
in a classified setting, shall include an assessment of current
cargo inspection protocols and requirement gaps that may exist.

TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

Subtitle A--Space Activities

Modifications to Space Rapid Capabilities Office (sec. 1601)
The committee recommends a provision to clarify and update
the structure of the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (Space
RCO).
The committee notes that section 1601 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91) re-designates the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)
Office as the Space RCO. Given the challenges the committee had
in persuading the Department of Defense to recognize the need
for responsive space since the inception of the ORS Office,
mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013
(Public Law 112-239), the committee is encouraged by the
enthusiasm expressed by the Commander, Air Force Space Command
and the other Air Force senior leadership for the Space RCO.
Space warfighting policy and review of space capabilities (sec. 1602)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a space warfighting policy not
later than March 29, 2019. The provision would also direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review relating to the
national security space enterprise that evaluates: (1) The
resiliency of the national security space enterprise with
respect to a conflict; (2) The ability of the national security
space enterprise to attribute an attack on a space system in a
timely manner; (3) The ability of the United States to resolve
a conflict in space and determine the material means by which
such a conflict may be resolved; (4) The ability of the
national security space enterprise to defend against, defeat,
and deter aggressive behavior in space; (5) The effectiveness
and efficiency of the national security space enterprise to
rapidly research, develop, acquire, and deploy space
capabilities and capacities; (6) The current organizational
structure of the national security space enterprise with
respect to roles, responsibilities, and authorities; (7) Any
emerging space threat the Deputy Secretary expects the United
States to confront over the next 10 years; and (8) Any other
matters that the Deputy Secretary considers appropriate.
Report on enhancements to the Global Positioning System Operational
Control Segment (sec. 1603)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the
enactment of this Act with an interim briefing no later than
March 15, 2019, on potential further enhancements to the
Operational Control Segment for the Global Positioning System
to achieve capabilities similar to the Next Generation
Operational Control Segment, including cyber security
enhancements and other incremental capabilities. The report
would also include the cost and schedule for such additional
capabilities and enhancements.
Streamline of commercial space launch operations (sec. 1604)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1617 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1106; 51 U.S.C.
50918 note) to prohibit the Secretary of Defense's imposition
of a requirement in procurement germane to national security
space launch duplicative of any requirement imposed by the
Secretary of Transportation under chapter 509 of title 10,
United States Code. The provision would also include a waiver.
Reusable launch vehicles (sec. 1605)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out the policy set forth in
section 2273 of title 10, United States Code, that regarding
assured access to space for national security payloads, with a
strategy that includes reusable launch systems.
The provision would also require the Secretary to submit to
the congressional defense committees, no less than 60 days
prior to the issuance of the solicitation for procurement of
space launch services, a determination as to: whether launch
vehicles using previously flown components could meet mission
requirements, whether services utilizing reusable launch
vehicles are eligible for award, and, if not, a justification
for this ineligibility.
Review of and report on activities of International Space Station (sec.
1606)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to complete
a review of each program, activity, and future technology
research project of the Department of Defense being carried out
on the International Space Station and submit that review to
the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Armed Services, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives.

Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities

Framework on governance, mission management, resourcing, and effective
oversight of Department of Defense combat support agencies that
are also elements of the intelligence community (sec. 1611)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop and codify in policy a
framework and supporting processes within the Department of
Defense to ensure that the missions, roles, and functions of
the Combat Support Agencies of the Department of Defense that
are also elements of the Intelligence Community, and other
intelligence components of the Department, are appropriately
balanced and resourced.

Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters

Part I--Cyberspace Generally

Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, cyber
warfare, and cyber deterrence (sec. 1621)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the policy of the United States with respect to matters
pertaining to cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare.
The committee has long expressed its concern with the lack
of an effective strategy and policy for addressing cyber
threats and cyber deterrence. The National Defense
Authorization Act has included numerous provisions over the
past few years that directed the executive branch to define and
develop the policies and strategies necessary to improve the
structure, capability, roles, and responsibilities of our
national cyber efforts. The committee has also placed a strong
emphasis on the need for developing a comprehensive cyber
deterrence strategy. Unfortunately, the committee believes the
responses to those requests have been insufficient hitherto and
incommensurate with the threat we face in the cyber domain.
Affirming the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military
activities and operations in cyberspace (sec. 1622)
The committee recommends a provision that would affirm the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military
activities and operations in cyberspace, including clandestine
military activities and operations, to defend the United
States, its allies, and its interests, in anticipation of and
in response to malicious cyber activities carried out against
the United States or a United States person by a foreign power.
The provision would affirm that this authority includes the
conduct of military activities or operations in cyberspace
short of war and in areas outside of named areas of conflict
for the purpose of preparation of the environment, adversary
influence, force protection, deterrence of hostilities, and
counterterrorism operations involving the Armed Forces of the
United States. The provision would also make clear that
clandestine military activities or operations in cyberspace are
traditional military activities for the purposes of section
503(e)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-
253).
The committee understands that the authors of the National
Security Act used the term ``traditional military activities''
to exempt standard military operations and activities from the
Act's stringent reporting requirements, designed for the
intelligence community's covert action. The authors did not
anticipate the cyber domain or the nature of modern cyber
conflict and therefore could not establish whether the
military's activities in cyberspace qualify as such traditional
military activities. As a result, there is some debate across
the executive branch today as to whether sufficient precedent
exists to determine that clandestine military activities in
cyberspace should qualify as traditional military activities.
This interagency disagreement has limited the Department of
Defense's ability to conduct these necessary operations, novel
only in that they occur in the cyber domain.
The committee believes that clandestine military activities
in cyberspace are not just traditional military activities but
essential to the military effectiveness of the Armed Forces in
modern warfare. The committee asserts that persistent cyber
operations in adversary networks, or ``red space,'' are
critical for the development of military and deterrence
targets. As Lieutenant General Paul Nakasone stated on February
27, 2018, in his response to the committee's advance policy
questions for his nomination to be the Commander, U.S. Cyber
Command and the Director of the National Security Agency, ``to
be operationally effective in cyberspace, U.S. forces must have
the ability to conduct a range of preparatory activities, which
may include gaining clandestine access to operationally
relevant cyber systems or networks.'' The committee is
concerned that, without the ability to identify, surveil, and
pre-position tools on targets in peacetime, the military's
ability to provide options to military planners and the
President during wartime will be severely limited.
Active defense and surveillance against Russian Federation attacks in
cyberspace (sec. 1623)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the National Command Authority to direct the Commander, U.S.
Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), to take appropriate and proportional
action through cyberspace to disrupt, defeat, and deter
systematic and ongoing attacks by the Russian Federation in
cyberspace. The provision would require the Commander, U.S.
Cyber Command, to provide at least quarterly reports to the
congressional defense committees in any year in which such
actions are undertaken.
The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense
to conduct, through the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command,
surveillance in networks outside the United States of personnel
and organizations engaged at the behest or in support of the
Russian Federation in: (1) Stealing and releasing confidential
information from U.S. persons campaigning for public office or
organizations supporting such campaigns; (2) Generating and
planting information and narratives in U.S. social media and
other media intended to mislead, sharpen social and political
conflicts, or otherwise manipulate perceptions and opinions of
American citizens; (3) Creating networks of subverted computers
and false accounts on social media platforms for the purpose of
spreading and amplifying such information and narratives; and
(4) Planning and developing capabilities to attack U.S.
critical infrastructure with the intent to cause casualties
among U.S. persons or persons of allies of the United States,
significant damage to private or public property, significant
economic disruption, an effect, individually or in aggregate,
comparable to that of an armed attack or one that imperils a
vital national security interest of the United States, or
significant disruption of the normal functioning of the United
States democratic society or government, including attacks
against or incidents involving critical infrastructure that
could damage systems used to provide key services to the public
or government.
The provision would direct the Secretary of Defense, either
directly or in coordination with other Federal agencies and
departments, and using the results of the surveillance
conducted through CYBERCOM, to work with social media companies
on a voluntary basis to assist those companies in identifying
accounts created by personnel and organizations engaged at the
behest or in support of the Russian Federation and that violate
the companies' terms of service. The provision would allow the
Secretary of Defense to grant security clearances to
individuals of media companies as the Secretary deems necessary
and appropriate for this purpose.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit an annual report to the Congress on the scope
and intensity of Russian Federation information operations and
attacks through cyberspace against the U.S. government and the
American people, as observed by the Cyber Mission Forces of
CYBERCOM and the National Security Agency.
Through open and closed hearings with Department of Defense
officials and independent experts, the committee received
testimony on the feasibility and appropriateness of utilizing
the Cyber Mission Forces assigned to CYBERCOM, operating
outside the United States, to detect, identify, track, and
actively disrupt the activities of operators working on behalf
of the Russian Federation to conduct influence operations in
the United States. The committee heard testimony establishing
that the Russian Federation seeks to achieve strategic
objectives in conducting such operations and concludes that the
threat posed by such operations is significant enough to
require active countervailing actions. These illegal
operations, to date, though intended to achieve strategic
effects, are generally assessed to fall into the category of
``grey zone conflict,'' below the level of an armed attack. The
committee believes that disrupting them in proportionate self-
defense through traditional military activities in cyberspace
is likewise not an armed attack nor escalatory. The committee
urges the National Command Authority to act on this
authorization.
Reorganization and consolidation of certain cyber provisions (sec.
1624)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend part
I of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, by
transferring sections 130g, 130j, and 130k, currently of
chapter 13, to chapter 19. This reorganization would codify
these sections, governing some of the Department of Defense's
responsibilities and reporting requirements concerning
cyberspace, under ``Cyber Matters'' rather than ``General
Powers and Functions.''
Designation of official for matters relating to integrating
cybersecurity and industrial control systems within the
Department of Defense (sec. 1625)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to designate one official as responsible
for the integration of cybersecurity and industrial control
systems within the Department of Defense, to include the
development of Department-wide standards for integration of
industrial control systems and the potential applicability of
frameworks set forth by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and similar organizations.
The committee is concerned that no one individual is
responsible for defining industrial control system
cybersecurity standards within the Department of Defense and
that the lack of such an individual has impeded holistic
cybersecurity efforts across the Department and its critical
infrastructure.
Assistance for small manufacturers in the defense industrial supply
chain on matters relating to cybersecurity (sec. 1626)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief Information
Officer and Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, to improve awareness of cybersecurity threats
among small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the defense
industrial supply chain. Measures pursuant to this requirement
would include: (1) Energetic outreach to the relevant
businesses critical to the industrial base and supply chain
needs of the Department of Defense (DOD); (2) The development
of cybersecurity self-assessments to enhance firms'
understanding of network vulnerabilities and the Department's
cybersecurity standards; (3) The transfer of appropriate
cybersecurity technology, threat information, and techniques
developed in the DOD to these businesses; and (4) The
establishment of a cyber counseling certification program, or
approval of a similar extant program, to certify small- and
medium-sized business professionals and other relevant
acquisition staff within the DOD to provide cyber planning
assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers.
The committee is concerned that small- and medium-sized
manufacturers of defense or defense-related systems are unaware
of or unable to meet the cybersecurity standards of the DOD;
they therefore represent a potential vulnerability to DOD
systems and assets. The committee believes that, to avoid
exclusion of small- and medium-sized manufacturers from the
acquisition process, the Department should be proactive in its
communication to and cooperation with these businesses in
ensuring that they can meet DOD standards. The committee also
believes that the Department should consider using extant
resources and capacities in this space, including the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program and the National Network of Manufacturing
Institutes.
Modification of acquisition authority of the Commander of United States
Cyber Command (sec. 1627)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) by extending the
acquisition authority established in that section for the
Commander, U.S. Cyber Command. The section initially limited
the Commander's obligation and expenditure germane to his
acquisition authority to $75.0 million from fiscal year 2016
through fiscal year 2021, at which point the authority would
sunset. This provision would extend that authority through
fiscal year 2025 and raise the limit on obligation and
expenditure to $250.0 million.
Email and Internet website security and authentication (sec. 1628)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to implement the requirements of the
Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 18-01, issued by the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on
October 16, 2017. This BOD was modeled on actions directed by
the United Kingdom's National Cybersecurity Center to enhance
email security and authentication and web security. The
Department of Defense (DOD) as a rule is exempt from DHS BODs,
on the grounds that the DOD's security posture is superior to
that of the rest of the government. In this case, however, the
DHS BOD makes eminent sense for DOD and should be adopted as
soon as possible.
The actions required specifically include: (1) The adoption
of the START Transport Layer Security (STARTTLS) protocol for
encryption; (2) Enforcement of Sender Policy Framework (SPF),
Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM), and Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) for email
authentication; and (3) Implementation of Hypertext Transfer
Protocol Strict Transport Security (HSTS).
These simple measures would provide enormous cybersecurity
benefits for the Department and would bring the Department in
line with current accepted standards.
The provision would also require the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense to notify the
congressional defense committees within 180 days of the
issuance of a DHS BOD germane to cybersecurity as to whether
the Department plans to comply with the directive or how the
Department plans to meet the security objectives of the
directive.
Matters pertaining to the Sharkseer cybersecurity programs (sec. 1629)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to transfer the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency (NSA) to the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA). In executing this transfer,
the Secretary would be required to also transfer all funding
and, as needed, personnel for the program. The provision would
fence 10 percent of the funding available for obligation in
fiscal year 2019 and subsequent years for NSA's Information
Systems Security Program, PE 33140G, until the Principal Cyber
Advisor certifies to the congressional defense committees that
the operations and maintenance funding for the Sharkseer
program for fiscal year 2019 and the subsequent fiscal years of
the current future years defense program are available or
programmed.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to adopt the Sharkseer ``break and inspect'' decryption
capability as the enterprise solution in satisfaction of the
requirement in section 1636 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). In executing this requirement,
the provision would require the Secretary to integrate the
Sharkseer break and inspect subsystem with the Department of
Defense's public key infrastructure.
The provision would require the Secretary, by October 1,
2020, to enable the Sharkseer system and computer network
defense service providers to automatically identify and locate
hosts and endpoints that received or sent malware detected by
Sharkseer or other network perimeter defense systems for
remediation.
The committee notes that the Sharkseer system provides an
enterprise capability for ``sandboxing as a service,'' meaning
that it has the capacity to receive and run in a virtual host
any suspicious samples isolated by any component in the
Department of Defense (DOD). Meanwhile, other DOD organizations
are pursuing redundant capabilities. This provision would
require the termination of alternative sandbox-as-a-service
initiatives and designation of Sharkseer for that purpose by
October 1, 2020.
Finally, the provision would authorize an increase of $20.0
million to the $790.2 million requested for the Defense
Information Systems Agency in Procurement, Defense-wide. The
committee recommends this additional authorization to increase
the bandwidth of the Sharkseer system to match the increased
bandwidth of the Internet Access Points that the Sharkseer
system must monitor.
Pilot program on modeling and simulation in support of military
homeland defense operations in connection with cyber attacks on
critical infrastructure (sec. 1630)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global
Security to carry out a pilot program on modeling and
simulation in support of military homeland defense operations
through U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Cyber Command. The pilot
program would be based on the results and lessons learned from
ongoing research exercises involving local government,
industry, and military responses to combined natural disasters
and cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. The ongoing
research exercises, known as ``Jack Voltaic 1.0'' and ``Jack
Voltaic 2.0,'' are conducted by the Army Cyber Institute,
industry partners, and the cities of New York and Houston.
In general, the objective of such a pilot program would be
the development of risk analysis methodologies and the
application of advanced commercial simulation and modeling
capabilities, based on hyperscale cloud computing technology
and artificial intelligence/machine learning technology, for
use by active and reserve component military forces, industry,
and civil government organizations, to: (1) Assess defense
critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and interdependencies
to improve military resilience; (2) Determine the likely
effectiveness of potential cyber attacks and the
countermeasures, tactics, and tools used in responding to such
attacks; (3) Train personnel in incident response; (4) Conduct
complex and large scale exercises and test scenarios; and (5)
Foster collaboration and learning between and among departments
and agencies of the Federal government, State and local
government, military forces, and private entities responsible
for critical infrastructure. The pilot would also assist in the
development and demonstration of the foundations for a
potential program of record for a shared, high-fidelity,
interactive, and affordable cloud-based modeling and simulation
of critical infrastructure systems and incident response that
can simulate complex cyber and physical disruptions on local,
State, regional, and national scales.
The provision would require the Assistant Secretary to
provide a report on the pilot program coincident with the
submission of the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request.
The report should include: (1) A description of the exercises
conducted under the ``Jack Voltaic'' series and the pilot
program; (2) An inventory of the cybersecurity units of the
National Guard and Reserves that could be shared among the
States under mutual assistance compacts; (3) A description of
the risk analysis methodologies and modeling and simulation
capabilities developed and demonstrated in the pilot, together
with an assessment of the potential future growth of commercial
technology; (4) Recommendations regarding the establishment of
a program of record for the Department of Defense for the
further development and sustainment of advanced, large-scale
modeling and simulation on modern cloud infrastructure of cyber
warfare involving critical infrastructure; (5) Lessons learned
from the application of novel risk analysis methodologies and
large-scale modeling and simulation regarding vulnerabilities,
required capabilities, and reconfigured force structure,
coordination practices, and policy; and (6) Planned steps for
implementing these lessons.
The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $28.5
million was for PE 62308A Advanced Concepts and Simulation. The
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total
of $38.5 million, in RDT&E Army, PE 62308A, for the pilot
program on modeling and simulation.
Security product integration framework (sec. 1631)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), the Chief Information Officer
(CIO), and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, to select a
network or network segment and associated computer network
defense service provider to conduct a demonstration and
evaluation of one or more existing security product integration
frameworks, including through modification of network security
systems to enable such systems to ingest, publish, subscribe,
tip and cue, and request information or services from each
other.
The provision also includes congressional findings that:
(1) The Department of Defense (DOD) requires a standard,
enterprise-wide ``security product integration framework''
(SPIF) that provides machine-to-machine data exchange
architecture and protocol to achieve interoperability among and
orchestration of all the cybersecurity tools, applications,
systems, and services deployed across DOD networks; (2)
Information security products and services must be engineered
not only to connect to this framework but also to consume and
act on the information that can be provided and to prompt other
actions by other devices and applications; and (3) Candidate
SPIFs would ideally be non-proprietary or designed as a modular
open system.
The committee directs that the PCA, CIO, and Commander,
U.S. Cyber Command: (1) Complete this demonstration and
evaluation by October 1, 2019; (2) Promptly report their
findings and recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense
for consideration of funding for follow-on activities in
preparation of the budget request for fiscal year 2020; and (3)
Provide a briefing on the results to the congressional defense
committees on request.
Report on enhancement of software security for critical systems (sec.
1632)
Consistent with and pursuant to section 1647 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), section 1650 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), and section 1640
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense and Global Security, who serves as the
Principal Cyber Advisor, and the Chief Information Officer
shall conduct a technical and cost-benefit study of the merits
of applying, to the vulnerability assessment and remediation of
nuclear systems and nuclear command and control, a critical
subset of conventional power projection capabilities, cyber
command and control, and defense critical infrastructure: (1)
Technology developed and used by Department of Defense combat
support agencies to discover flaws and weaknesses in software
code by inputting immense quantities of pseudo-random data,
commonly referred to as ``fuzz,'' to identify inputs that cause
the software to fail; (2) Software fuzzing-as-a-service in a
commercial cloud that could be used to continuously ``fuzz''
critically important software repositories used by the
Department of Defense to make them more secure and stable by
combining modern fuzzing techniques with scalable distributed
execution; (3) Formal programming and protocol language for
software code development and other methods and tools developed
under the High Assurance Cyber Military Systems program of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and (4) The binary
analysis and symbolic execution software security tools
developed under the Cyber Grand Challenge program of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to discover flaws and
weaknesses in software by inputting mathematically generated
data based on automated analysis of code and providing proof
of, and patches to, the identified flaws.
The Principal Cyber Advisor and the Chief Information
Officer shall provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on the results of the study, and their
recommendations for further action, no later than March 1,
2019.

Comply to connect and cybersecurity scorecard (sec. 1633)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of funds for the so-called
Cybersecurity Scorecard after October 1, 2019, unless the
Department of Defense (DOD) is implementing by that date a
funded program pursuant to section 1653 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to
fulfill the requirements established by the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command in the
Information Security Continuous Monitoring Strategy, Comply-to-
Connect Strategy, Enterprise Patch Management Service Strategy
and Concept of Operations, and User Activity Monitoring
Strategy.
The provision would also require the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees: (1) Comparing the current
capabilities of the DOD to the requirements established by the
CIO and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command pursuant to section
1653 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328) for the Information Security
Continuous Monitoring Strategy, Comply-to-Connect Strategy,
Enterprise Patch Management Service Strategy and Concept of
Operations, and User Activity Monitoring Strategy; and (2) The
capabilities deployed by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the General Services Administration under the
Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program across the non-
DOD Federal agencies and departments.
The provision would also require the CIO, the Principal
Cyber Advisor (PCA), the Director of Operations of the Joint
Staff, and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command to establish risk
thresholds for systems and network operations that, when
exceeded, would trigger heightened security measures.
Finally, the provision would require, not later than 180
days after the enactment of this Act, the CIO and the PCA to
develop a plan to implement an enterprise governance, risk, and
compliance platform and process similar to those adopted by
leading commercial entities for information and operational
technology security.
The Congress has in vain mandated multiple times in
legislation that the DOD correct its inability to account for
software licenses in use across the Department. Likewise, the
Congress has mandated the development and implementation of a
strategy for automated comply-to-connect and continuous
monitoring capabilities. The committee notes that budget
justification materials for the President's fiscal year 2019
request show that the CIO and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command
developed the required strategy, implementation plans, and
funding proposal but that the proposal was rejected by the CAPE
in the issue-paper cycle. Meanwhile, DOD components are in a
constant scramble to produce through manual data calls the
regular cybersecurity scorecard for the Secretary of Defense,
but this scorecard is neither up-to-date nor accurate, as the
Department has no method for detecting the large number of
unknown devices and unaccounted for software instances running
on its networks. That unknown software on unknown devices
represents a substantial risk, in addition to the risk posed by
cumbersome, rigid, and manually managed patching and access
procedures.
The committee notes that commercial products exist to solve
these serious problems and that the DHS is already fielding
such capabilities in protection of the civil departments and
agencies.

Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1634)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, tasked with developing a
strategic approach to protecting and advancing the United
States' advantages in cyberspace. The Commission would weigh
the benefits and costs of various strategic frameworks (e.g.,
deterrence, norms-based regimes, and cyber persistence),
evaluate the sufficiency of the current allocation of resources
in cyberspace, and consider potential realignments in
governmental structure and authorities.
The Commission would comprise 13 members, including the
Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, the Deputy
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, and 10 members chosen by the majority and minority
parties of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The
latter would be either members of Congress or cybersecurity and
national security experts from the public and private sectors.
The Commission would be co-chaired by a member of the
Republican Party and a member of the Democratic Party. The
Commission would have broad authorities to hold hearings,
request information from government entities, subpoena
witnesses, and contract out taskings.
Not later than September 1, 2019, the Commission would
submit a report detailing its findings to the congressional
defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees,
the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not later than
60 days after receipt of the Commission's report, the Director
of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense would
both submit to the congressional defense and intelligence
committees their assessments of the report and final
recommendations.
The committee is aware that a nascent literature on
cybersecurity strategy has emerged, encompassing the views and
theories of various entities across State and Federal
government, the private sector, and academia. Practitioners
have begun to appreciate this body of thought and leverage
these resources in shaping the Nation's cybersecurity posture.
The committee is enthusiastic about this decentralized
initiative but believes that the establishment of the Cyber
Solarium Commission, by formalizing this utilization process,
would only improve the government's cybersecurity posture and
help to preserve the United States' extant advantages.
In 1953, President Eisenhower convened the original Project
Solarium as a resource to inform the United States' containment
strategy. The project featured three teams, with two advocating
differing degrees of containment and one advancing a strategy
of roll-back. This direct comparison illuminated for the
Eisenhower administration a number of implications and
contingencies associated with containment, thus refining its
successful implementation of containment in NSC 162/2, an
update on the Truman administration's NSC 68. The committee
sees a great deal of value in such an approach, especially as
it might be applied to one of the great challenges of our time:
preserving the United States' interests and advantages in
cyberspace.

Program to establish cyber institutes at institutions of higher
learning (sec. 1635)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish a Cyber Institute at any
college or university that hosts a Reserve Officers' Training
Corps program, with special consideration for the Senior
Military Colleges.
The committee recognizes the importance of institutions of
higher learning in the education and development of the cyber
workforce and believes that these institutions offer an avenue
to accelerate and focus the development of foundational
expertise in critical cyber operations skills for future
military and civilian leaders. The committee commends the
Department on its continued investment in cyber education and
training as a cornerstone of our national security.
The committee believes that the Department's future focus
on cyber education and training should extend to other
institutions of higher learning that have Reserve Officers'
Training Corps programs in order to develop the cyber workforce
across the active and components. The Senior Military Colleges
offer robust cyber programs at the undergraduate and graduate
levels, provide a focus on leadership development, and
commission a large portion of officers across the active,
reserve, and National Guard components.

Establishment of Cybersecurity for Defense Industrial Base
Manufacturing Activity (sec. 1636)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to, in consultation with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, establish an activity to
assess and strengthen the cybersecurity resiliency of the
defense industrial base in the United States, including the
development of cybersecurity test capabilities, development of
training regimes, integration of defense industrial base
cybersecurity into research and development roadmaps and threat
assessments, and the dissemination of relevant capabilities to
address threats to the defense industrial base.

Part II--Mitigation of Risks Posed by Providers of Information
Technology with Obligations to Foreign Governments

Definitions (sec. 1637)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
definitions for subsequent provisions relating to the
establishment of a program to mitigate the risks derivative of
foreign governments' code review of information technology
products used by the Department of Defense.

Identification of countries of concern regarding cybersecurity (sec.
1638)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to create a prioritized list of countries
of concern related to cybersecurity based on their governments'
hostility, intelligence activity, criminal activity, and
willingness and ability to disrupt the U.S. government's supply
chain.

Mitigation of risks to national security posed by providers of
information technology products and services who have
obligations to foreign governments (sec. 1639)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense's use of any information technology,
cybersecurity, industrial control system, weapons system, or
computer antivirus system unless the provider discloses to the
Secretary of Defense: (1) whether it has allowed a foreign
government to review or access a product custom-developed for
the Department of Defense or is under any obligation to provide
a foreign person or government with access or review of such a
product; (2) whether it has allowed a government listed in the
report required by section 1638 of this Act to review or access
the source code of a product, system, or service that the
Department is using or intends to use or is under any
obligation to do so; and (3) whether it holds or has sought a
license pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations under
subchapter C of chapter VII of title 15, Code of Federal
Regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
under subchapter M of chapter I of title 22, Code of Federal
Regulations, or successor regulations, for information
technology products, components, software, or services.
The provision would further require that a procurement
contract for the covered products include a clause requiring
that, if the provider becomes aware of any additional
information germane to these requirements, this information be
disclosed during the period of the contract.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to take measures to mitigate the risks gleaned from and
associated with these disclosures, including conditioning in
contracts and limitations of use of certain products.

Establishment of registry of disclosures (sec. 1640)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a registry containing the
information on foreign governments required by section 1638 of
this Act and on providers of information technology products
and services required by section 1639 of this Act. The
provision would also require the Secretary to make available
this information to any agency conducting a procurement
pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulations and to submit a report to the
relevant congressional committees on the scope of acquisition
for and mitigation agreements relevant to the Department of
Defense's acquisition of products for which a disclosure has
been made under section 1639 of this Act.

Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces

Oversight and management of the command, control, and communications
system for the national leadership of the United States (sec.
1641)

The committee recommends a provision that would centralize
and clarify responsibility for national leadership command,
control, and communications systems by requiring the Secretary
of Defense to designate a single individual responsible for
strategic portfolio management of these and related programs.
The provision would also modify the structure of the Council on
Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and
Communications System to streamline its functions and make the
single individual designated by the Secretary the sole Chair.
The committee commends the Secretary for his commitment to
reforming the governance of nuclear command, control, and
communications (NC3) and has great respect for the dedication
of the small group of knowledgeable individuals throughout the
Department of Defense who have been deeply involved in this
effort. The NC3 enterprise is one of the most complex and
distributed systems in the Department, and the committee agrees
that such an important system cannot effectively be managed by
a council. The committee believes that a single individual
should be responsible, and also accountable, for the successful
management of the NC3 enterprise, including synchronization of
programs across the Air Force, Navy, and other organizations,
advocacy for adequate budgets and personnel in the Services,
and timely integration of new systems into the ongoing nuclear
triad modernization programs. The individual should also have
the authorities required to be effective in these roles and a
full-time staff to support him or her.

Modification to requirement for conventional long-range standoff weapon
(sec. 1642)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Air Force to retire the conventionally-armed AGM-86C prior to
achieving initial operating capability for a conventionally-
armed variant of the long-range standoff weapon (LRSO). The
provision would instead require the Air Force to begin
procurement and fielding of a conventionally-armed LRSO not
more than 5 years after the nuclear LRSO completes initial
operational test and evaluation.

Exchange program for nuclear weapons program employees (sec. 1643)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Administrator
of the National Nuclear Security Administration to jointly
establish a program to exchange civilian and military personnel
on a temporary basis between the offices of the Department of
Defense working on nuclear weapons policy, production, and
force structure issues and the Office of the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear
Security Administration at the Department of Energy. The
program would provide for the exchange of between 5 and 10
civilian and military personnel for terms of 1 to 2 years. The
provision would require the Chairman and the Administrator to
provide interim guidance to the congressional defense
committees within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act
and to implement such guidance within 180 days of the date of
enactment.
The committee intends for this program to foster working-
level relationships between personnel working on nuclear
weapons programs in both Departments. The committee firmly
believes that frequent and robust communication between the
relevant offices, as well as broadening experience for the
personnel involved, would result in more effective
implementation of nuclear weapons programs in the medium- and
long-term.

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic
missile fuzes (sec. 1644)

The committee recommends a provision that would give the
Air Force the authority to expend funds appropriated for fiscal
year 2019 to buy certain intercontinental ballistic missile
fuze parts as part of the effort to replace the Mk21 fuze.
The committee notes that this collaborative effort with the
Navy has enabled both Services to leverage commonality between
the intercontinental ballistic missile and sea-launched
ballistic missile fuze components. Both Services have worked
with Sandia National Laboratories to perform fuze design and
development, which has ensured maximum use of common
components, subassemblies, and technologies.
The committee also understands that this authority has
allowed the Air Force to execute life-of-type buys with the
Navy for fiscal years 2015 through 2019, at an estimated
savings of $600.0 million to the Air Force. The committee
encourages the Navy and the Air Force to continue to seek areas
of commonality between missile programs and leverage those to
create efficiencies.

Plan to train officers in nuclear command, control, and communications
(sec. 1645)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a plan to train, educate,
manage, and track field-grade military officers in nuclear
command, control, and communications (NC3). The provision would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit the plan to the
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days from
the date of enactment of this Act.
The committee is aware that managing the NC3 enterprise is
one of the most complex and vital missions of the U.S. military
and requires operational, technical, and acquisition expertise.
The committee does not believe that incidental knowledge of NC3
gained through operation of a nuclear weapons system like a
nuclear-capable bomber or intercontinental ballistic missile is
sufficient to constitute NC3 expertise. The committee also
understands that the Services do not provide sufficient
opportunities for explicit training or education on the subject
and do not deliberately develop officers who possess desired
expertise to be effective leaders in this complex mission area.
The committee believes that a carefully-managed cohort of
officers trained or educated in the NC3 enterprise as a whole
will be required to build and maintain the future enterprise.
The committee does not intend to prejudge the content of
the plan and encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine
options including modifying or creating entirely new officer
career fields, developing specialized joint professional
military education, designating specific NC3 billets, modifying
promotion timelines and opportunities, and crafting exchanges
among various elements of the NC3 mission.

Plan for alignment of acquisition of warhead life extension programs
and delivery vehicles for such warheads (sec. 1646)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to provide a
proposal to better align acquisition of National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) warhead life extension programs
with Department of Defense (DOD) nuclear weapons delivery
vehicle programs. The plan would be due no later than February
15, 2019.
The committee is concerned about challenges with
synchronization between NNSA and DOD acquisition programs, such
as the B61-12 life extension with the Tail-Kit Assembly and the
W80-4 life extension with the Long-Range Standoff weapon. As
the nuclear modernization program continues and with the
recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review,
opportunities to better align DOD and NNSA programs-such as the
analysis of alternatives regarding a sea-launched cruise
missile and the W78 warhead replacement, both beginning this
year-will increase in number and salience. The committee
believes that poor synchronization could disrupt these and
other elements of the nuclear modernization program, resulting
in unacceptable delays in delivery.
The committee encourages the Chairman of the NWC to seek
input from all stakeholders in the formation of this plan,
including the other members of the NWC, the Navy, the Air
Force, and the Deputy Administrator of the NNSA for Defense
Programs--as well as the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for
Acquisition and Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Programs within the Chairman's own office. The committee
further encourages the Chairman to consider a wide range of
options within the proposal, including improvements to and
standardization of mechanisms that have been successful for
existing programs and changes in acquisition authorities or
processes for the NNSA and the DOD. The committee hopes to
receive the plan in time to consider any proposal requiring
legislative action in the defense authorization for fiscal year
2020.

Extension of annual report on plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile,
nuclear weapons complex, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and
nuclear weapons command and control system (sec. 1647)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
reporting requirement in section 1043 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as
amended, by 5 years, through fiscal year 2024.

Prohibition on use of funds for activities to modify United States
aircraft to implement Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1648)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of any funds for fiscal year 2019
for research, development, test, and engineering, Air Force, or
aircraft procurement, Air Force, for the digital visual imaging
system to modify U.S. aircraft for the purpose of implementing
the Open Skies Treaty until the President and the Secretary of
Defense submit the two certifications described in section
1235(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).

Sense of Senate on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1649)

The committee recommends a provision that would make a
series of findings and state the sense of the Senate on the
2018 Nuclear Posture Review.

Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs

Extension of prohibition relating to missile defense information and
systems (sec. 1651)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 130h(e) of title 10, United States Code, by striking
``January 1, 2019,'' and inserting ``January 1, 2021,'' to
extend the limitations on providing certain sensitive missile
defense information to the Russian Federation and integrating
missile defense systems of the Russian Federation and the
People's Republic of China into U.S. missile defense systems.

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-3 IB guided
missiles (sec. 1652)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority for the Secretary of Defense to enter into a
multiyear contract for the procurement of up to 204 Standard
Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB guided missiles for fiscal year 2019
through fiscal year 2023 program years, with advance
procurement for economic order quantities also beginning in
fiscal year 2019 pending the Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation confirmation of the Secretary of the Navy's
preliminary findings as required in subsection a of section
2306b of title 10, United States Code.
The SM-3 Block IB program is a core element of the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense program and is approved through the
current future years defense program. This provision would
provide the following benefits: (1) Generate cost savings
compared to annual procurement cost estimates; (2) Provide
stable production of SM-3 Block IBs; (3) Provide a long-term
commitment to the low-density aerospace industrial base that
stabilizes aerospace employment levels; (4) Provide an
incentive for industry capital investment for productivity
improvements that would benefit several Department of Defense
missile programs; and (5) Reduce disruptions in vendor delivery
schedules.

Extension of requirement for reports on unfunded priorities of Missile
Defense Agency (sec. 1653)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1696 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), removing the sunset
requirement for the unfunded priorities list of the Missile
Defense Agency.

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative
missile defense program co-development and co-production (sec.
1654)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
not more than $70.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to
provide to the Government of Israel to procure components for
the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system through co-
production of such components in the United States. Before
disbursing the funding for Iron Dome to the Government of
Israel, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must
certify that the March 5, 2014, bilateral international
agreement concerning Iron Dome, as amended, is being
implemented.
The provision would also authorize $50.0 million for the
Missile Defense Agency to provide to the Government of Israel
for the procurement of the David's Sling Weapon System and
$80.0 million for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program,
including for co-production of parts and components in the
United States by U.S. industry. The funds for the David's Sling
Weapon System may be disbursed after the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment certifies: (1) That the
Government of Israel has demonstrated successful completion of
certain milestones required by the research, development, and
technology agreement and the bilateral co-production agreement;
(2) That the funds will be matched on a one-for-one basis or in
an amount that otherwise meets best efforts; and (3) That the
level of co-production of parts and components in the United
States is not less than 50 percent.
The funds for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program
may be disbursed after the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment certifies that the United States
has entered into a bilateral agreement with the Government of
Israel. That agreement must establish: (1) The terms of co-
production of parts and components; (2) Transparency on the
Israeli requirement for the number of interceptors and
batteries; (3) Technical milestones for co-production and
procurement; (4) A joint affordability working group to
consider cost reduction initiatives; and (5) Joint approval
processes for third-party sales.
The committee acknowledges that the September 14, 2016,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and
Israel commits $500.0 million in U.S. funding for cooperative
missile defense programs annually beginning in fiscal year 2019
and ending in fiscal year 2028. According to the MOU, the
United States and Israel jointly understand that any U.S. funds
provided for such programs should be made available according
to separate bilateral agreements for the Iron Dome, David's
Sling, and Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program and should
maximize co-production of parts and components in the United
States at a level equal to or greater than 50 percent of U.S.-
appropriated funds for production. Additionally, Israel commits
not to seek additional missile defense funding from the United
States for the duration of the MOU, except in exceptional
circumstances as may be jointly agreed by the United States and
Israel. The committee expects to receive annual updates on all
cooperative defense programs, as delineated in the MOU, to
include progress reports and spending plans, as well as the
top-line figures of the Israel Missile Defense Organization
budget for these programs.

Metrics for evaluating effectiveness of integrated Ballistic Missile
Defense System against operationally realistic ballistic
missile attacks (sec. 1655)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) from
obligating 50 percent of funds available for the Command and
Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) until the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency establishes metrics for
evaluating the effectiveness of the integrated Ballistic
Missile Defense System (BMDS) and its components and elements
against operationally realistic ballistic missile attacks on
areas defended by U.S. combatant commands. Since 2004, the MDA
has expended roughly $5.1 billion in funding for the C2BMC
system. While this funding has delivered vital capabilities to
the warfighter over time, as the Congress exercises oversight
of MDA, it is difficult to follow the progress that the
investment in C2BMC has delivered.
The MDA reports capability delivery goals and progress at
the element level, which enables some oversight of individual
elements. However, the MDA does not report progress related to
software intensive capabilities that drive how two or more
elements must interact to deliver higher performing integrated
BMDS capabilities: for example, the ability to launch one of
several types of interceptors that are part of the integrated
system based on a cue from the family of sensors that are part
of the integrated system. Thus, the Congress has limited
insight into the progress and overall return on investment.
The committee notes that increasing BMDS integration,
including automation and interoperability between multiple BMDS
elements, is crucial to addressing increasing quantities and
capabilities of ballistic missile threats world-wide and
recognizes MDA's recent progress in BMDS integration. In recent
years, however, the Comptroller General of the United States
and the Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation continue to report integrated BMDS capability
shortfalls, in part due to schedule delays for C2BMC.
Specifically, the MDA emphasizes the importance of the C2BMC as
the BMDS integrator; however, the way progress is reported
makes it nearly impossible to determine how much cost growth or
schedule delay has occurred and to assess which capabilities
the C2BMC has delivered over the last decade as compared to
original plans, budgets, and schedules.
The lack of objective metrics for these capabilities has
limited visibility into the effects of delays on overall
performance and has thus been a significant impediment to
adequate oversight. The Comptroller General has therefore
recommended that such metrics and progress be part of the MDA's
external reporting process.
Given that the C2BMC is a software intensive capability,
the metrics that allow assessment of progress differ from those
typically used to assess hardware-intensive systems. Metrics
that demonstrate improvement in the quality and timeliness of
the information the system uses to manage ballistic missile
defense battles are critically important. Such measures would
allow oversight and assessment of the extent to which C2BMC is
or is not shortening the amount of time and resources required
to sense a ballistic missile threat and the success rate for
engagement of the threat-to include complex structured attacks,
not merely engagement of a single threat.
This provision would require the Director, Missile Defense
Agency, to coordinate with the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation; Director, BMDS Operational Test Agency; Commander,
Joint Forces Combatant Command-Integrated Missile Defense; as
well as the service acquisition executives and combatant
commanders to develop operationally relevant performance
metrics for the integrated BMDS and, in particular, C2BMC
capabilities.
This provision would also require the MDA to report
progress against these metrics in its annual reports to the
congressional defense committees on its acquisition baselines,
beginning in February 2019. The committee believes that it is
important to require such metrics to ensure that they will be
an enduring feature of MDA program management and oversight in
the future.

Modification of requirement relating to transition of ballistic missile
defense programs to military departments (sec. 1656)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1676(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to clarify the
equivalent of Milestone C approval for the Missile Defense
Agency.

Sense of the Senate on acceleration of missile defense capabilities
(sec. 1657)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
should accelerate the fielding, if technically feasible, of the
planned additional 20 ground-based interceptors with redesigned
kill vehicles (RKVs) at Fort Greely, Alaska, and ensure that
the RKV has demonstrated the ability to accomplish its intended
mission through a successful, operationally realistic flight
test. Furthermore, the provision would express the sense of the
Senate that the MDA should rapidly develop and deploy a space-
based sensor architecture and invest in innovative concepts for
existing technologies to ensure that missile defenses are
effective against emerging threats such as hypersonic and
cruise missiles. The provision would also require the Director
of the MDA to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act on the ways the MDA could accelerate such construction and
deployment at Fort Greely.

Integrated air and missile defense for evolving theater missile threats
(sec. 1658)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should pursue
regional missile defense assets to counter and deter cruise,
short-to-medium-range ballistic, and hypersonic missile
threats, as well as continue to focus resources on developing
an interoperable and integrated air-and-missile defense
architecture. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees no
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act a report on
the Department of Defense's plan for the creation of a fully
interoperable and integrated air and missile defense
architecture, if consistent with the recommendations of the
2018 Missile Defense Review.

Acceleration of hypersonic missile defense program (sec. 1659)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to accelerate the
hypersonic missile defense program and deploy that program in
conjunction with a persistent space-based missile defense
sensor program. The provision would also require that the
Director submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on how hypersonic missile defense can be accelerated
to meet emerging hypersonic threats.

Sense of the Senate on allied partnerships for missile defense (sec.
1660)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should seek
additional opportunities to provide missile defense
capabilities to allies and trusted partners and seek to
expedite foreign military sales in delivering such missile
defenses to those partners.

Sense of the Senate on results of tests carried out by Missile Defense
Agency (sec. 1660A)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that tests carried out by the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) that do not achieve the main intended
objective should not be considered failures and that the MDA
should recognize the learning value of individual advancements
made by all testing events. Furthermore, the provision would
express the sense of the Senate that the MDA should continue to
build independently accredited modeling and simulation elements
and pursue an increasingly rigorous testing regime in
coordination with the Office of the Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation, to more rapidly deliver capabilities to the
warfighter as the threat evolves.

Sense of the Senate on discrimination for missile defense (sec. 1660B)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that prioritizing discrimination
capabilities to improve missile defense effectiveness against
current and future threats is critically important. The
provision would also require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) to submit a report no later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act describing improvements
to discrimination required within the missile defense
architecture, MDA's plan to rapidly field advanced
discrimination capabilities, and an analysis of efforts to
address the discrimination challenges of emerging adversary
threats.

Development and deployment of persistent space-based sensor
architecture (sec. 1660C)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to commence
developing a persistent space-based sensor architecture capable
of supporting the ballistic missile defense system,
notwithstanding the outcome of the Missile Defense Review. The
provision would also require that the architecture developed by
MDA be compatible with efforts of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) related to space-based sensors for
missile defense and would require that the Secretary of Defense
submit a report no later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committees
on the progress of and coordination between the MDA, DARPA, and
Air Force efforts in this area.

Modification of requirement to develop a space-based ballistic missile
intercept layer (sec. 1660D)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to commence development
of a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer
notwithstanding the outcome of the Missile Defense Review.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of Russia and China
(sec. 1661)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities
of the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China.
Electronic warfare is increasingly used to gain an asymmetric
advantage with respect to electronic systems such as Global
Positioning System. It is essential that the Department of
Defense, as it develops countermeasures, holistically study all
aspects of how Russia and China develop electronic warfare
doctrine and order of battle across multiple domains, in
addition to long-term research trends for each country.

Budget exhibit on support provided to entities outside Department of
Defense (sec. 1662)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to include in the
budget justification materials accompanying the President's
Budget request each year a budget exhibit containing all
relevant details on Department of Defense support to the
programs at the Executive Office of the President related to
senior leader communications and continuity of government
programs.
The committee is aware that the Department provides
critical capabilities to the President in support of senior
leader communications and continuity of government missions,
and the committee fully supports these activities, including
those of the White House Military Office, the White House
Communications Agency, and certain activities at the Defense
Information Systems Agency. The committee has found, however,
that the Department is often unable to provide even the most
basic information about how much funding supports these
programs and from where that funding comes. This has resulted
in at least one instance in which the Department spent funds
despite a provision of law prohibiting the expenditure of those
funds. The committee understands the need to protect the
details of these programs but strongly believes that the
Congress needs more information than currently provided in
order to perform its most basic oversight functions.

Development of Electromagnetic Battle Management capability for joint
electromagnetic operations (sec. 1663)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Electronic Warfare Executive Committee to designate a military
Service with the responsibility for acting as executive agent
for the development of an Electromagnetic Battle Management
capability for joint electromagnetic operations.
The committee is concerned by the limited advocacy across
the Department of Defense for the development and management of
electronic warfare systems. The committee understands that,
while a requirement for a joint Electromagnetic Battle
Management exists, no Service has been assigned the
responsibility for developing the capability. The committee
believes that the development of a joint Electromagnetic Battle
Management capability is critical to addressing the current and
anticipated challenges posed by our most capable adversaries.

Budget Items

Army Cyber Center of Excellence

The budget request included $65.8 million for Cyberspace
Operations Forces and Force Support, Army Research Development
Technology and Engineering programs, PE 35251A. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $70.8
million, in PE 35251A, for the Army Cyber Center of Excellence
to carry out a pilot project in partnership with institutions
of higher education.

Wargaming and simulator systems

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which
$117.6 million was for PE 1206601F space technology.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91), this committee urged the Department
of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for
science and technology facilities, as well as those used for
test and evaluation. Unfortunately, these projects generally
fall victim to low prioritization, despite their major value to
the Department's mission.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million, for a total of $123.6 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE
1206601F, for minor military construction. The committee adds
these funds in order to fund the request for the Wargaming and
Simulator Laboratory. The committee strongly encourages the Air
Force to ensure that coordination regarding the appropriate
planning and design occurs so that this project is executable.

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which
$345.0 million was for PE 65230F Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD).
The committee understands that the technology maturation
and risk reduction phase of the GBSD program is several months
ahead of schedule, in part due to the lack of a protest of the
contract award. The committee strongly supports the GBSD
program as an integral part of the nuclear modernization
effort, supported by the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The
committee commends the Air Force's effort to maintain or
increase schedule margin on this program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $69.4
million, for a total of $414.4 million in RDTEAF, PE 65230F,
for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.

Space Rapid Capabilities Office

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which
$366.0 million was for PE 1206857F Space Rapid Capabilities
Office. The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million,
for a total of $316.0 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1206857F, for the
Solar Power Project, as funding is early-to-need. The committee
fully supports the Space Rapid Capabilities Office and its
underlying objectives. The committee's reduction of $50.0
million is without prejudice to the Solar Power Project, and
the committee has confirmed with the Air Force's Space and
Missile Systems Center that the funding could be applied to
other Air Force space priorities, such as the Blackjack
program, without any impact on the Solar Power Project. The
committee expects and encourages the Air Force to request the
necessary funding in its fiscal year 2020 budget to maintain
the schedule for the Solar Power Project.

Long Range Standoff Weapon

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which
$614.9 million was for PE 64932F Long Range Standoff Weapon
(LRSO).
The committee understands that, after an initial delay in
the award of the technology maturation and risk reduction
contracts for the LRSO in 2017, the program is now executing
ahead of schedule. The committee supports the timely
replacement of the AGM-85B Air-Launched Cruise Missile in order
to retain a credible air-launched leg of the nuclear triad and
is concerned that, without additional funding, the Air Force
may be forced to slow down or stop work on the LRSO program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $85.0
million, for a total of $699.9 million in RDTEAF, PE 64932F,
for the Long Range Standoff Weapon.

Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which
$643.1 million was for the PE 1206442F Evolved Space-Based
Infrared System. The committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million, for a total of $743.1 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1206442F,
to accelerate sensor development. The committee, in
consultation with the Air Force, believes the acceleration of
space vehicle sensor development is required to reduce overall
program risk for the Block 0 Next-Generation Persistent
Infrared satellite and to begin risk reduction for Block 1.

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which
$72.3 million was for PE 1203614F Joint Space Operations Center
Mission System.
The committee recognizes the agile software development
realignment of this program and notes that there should be cost
savings associated with this approach.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $62.3 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1203614F.

Hypersonic missile defense

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $120.4 million was for hypersonic missile defense.
The committee believes this is insufficient to accelerate
the development of critical interceptor technology in the areas
of propulsion and materials as well as initiate across the kill
chain advanced technology activities specifically focused on
the hypersonic glide vehicle threat.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $46.1
million-$10.5 million for PE 64181C; $13.4 million for PE
63178C; and $22.2 million for PE 63180C-for a total of $166.5
million, in RDTEDW, for hypersonic missile defense. This
additional funding was requested by the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency on the Unfunded Requirements List.

Exploiting commercial technology for synthetic aperture radar imaging
and automated exploitation

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $83.1 million was for PE 63375D8Z Technology Innovation.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million, for a
total of $103.1 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63375D8Z, to fund the
engineering development and launch of multiple prototype
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites and to sustain
Project DATAHUB.
The committee continues to support the efforts of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to exploit technology advances to
acquire additional, affordable space-based SAR capabilities.
Currently, only foreign companies produce commercially
available SAR satellites. Multiple U.S. companies are
developing small SAR satellites at an estimated price point of
$10.0 million or less per satellite on a recurring cost basis,
with launch costs adding several million dollars, amounts that
are orders of magnitude less than traditional space acquisition
programs. These satellites are designed to have resolution in
the range of 1 meter and impressive per-orbit collection
capacity. At present and forecasted cost and performance
levels, the DOD could afford to purchase, launch, and sustain a
large constellation to augment the coverage and resilience, and
reduce the latency of, existing and planned government and
commercial imaging systems.
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the former Deputy
Secretary of Defense also led an initiative, under Project
DATAHUB, to capitalize on commercial expertise in artificial
intelligence/machine learning technology to automate radar
imagery exploitation, which is an indispensable condition for
maintaining custody of important ground targets by distributed
constellations of spacecraft and airborne sensors.
The committee encourages the Vice Chairman to continue with
these initiatives but to also use an established acquisition
program office, such as the newly designated Space Rapid
Capabilities Office, to execute them. The Vice Chairman should
ensure that the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx)
novates any previously awarded contracts for the efforts to
establish the acquisition program that the Vice Chairman
selects. The committee directs the Vice Chairman not to
continue execution of the initiatives through DIUx. The goal of
these efforts is to acquire operational capabilities for the
Department of Defense--not to stimulate a commercial radar
imaging industry. These projects may be pursued under the
``Middle Tier'' acquisition authority provided by section 804
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), as described in a memorandum dated April
16, 2018, issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment.

United States Forces Korea Joint Emergent Operational Need

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $81.0 million was for the U.S. Pacific Command Joint
Emergent Operational Need (JEON).
In order to deliver improved ballistic missile defense
system capability to the Korean Peninsula, including the
integration of existing ballistic missile defense assets to
improve engagement options and coverage area, the committee
recommends an increase of $284.5 million--$184.1 million in PE
63881C, $24.0 million in PE 63884C, $71.9 million in PE 63914C,
and $4.5 million in PE 63915C--for a total of $365.5 million
for U.S. Pacific Command JEON. This additional funding was
requested by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
on the Unfunded Requirements List. The committee notes,
however, that the MDA has struggled in the past to deliver
certain capabilities relevant to this JEON on an accelerated
schedule despite planning to do so. The committee is not
confident that, with the increased funding for the JEON, these
capabilities will be delivered on the required schedule. For
this reason, the committee urges the MDA to ensure, through
rigorous oversight, that the JEON requirements are delivered to
the warfighter on time. The committee further notes that
removing testing events in order to deliver capabilities in a
shorter period of time is an irresponsible acquisition practice
and encourages the MDA to reconsider the decision to forgo
those testing events.
For these reasons, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report not later than December 1, 2018,
that addresses the following: (1) The MDA's progress in
developing, delivering, and deploying the capabilities
described in the United States Forces Korea (USFK) JEON; (2) A
comparison of USFK JEON capabilities with the original
Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System and
the original plans for executing European Phased Adaptive
Approach; (3) An evaluation of the extent to which USFK JEON
capabilities are sufficient to counter the threat; and (4) An
evaluation of any factors inhibiting development, acquisition,
and delivery of USFK JEON capabilities.

Midcourse ballistic missile defense

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $926.4 million was for PE 63882C Ballistic Missile
Defense Midcourse Defense.
In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease
of $208.0 million--a $143.0 million decrease for additional
boosters with the redesigned kill vehicle and a $65.0 million
decrease for silos at missile field 4 in Fort Greely, Alaska--
for a total of $718.4 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63882C, for
Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense.

Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, (RDTEDW), of
which $475.2 million was for PE 63896C Ballistic Missile
Defense Command and Control, Battle Management & Communication.
The committee encourages the program to deliver capability
more frequently.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0
million, for a total of $425.2 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63896C.

Sea-based X-band Radar

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $149.7 million was for PE 63907C Sea-based X-band Radar
(SBX).
In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease
of $33.0 million--a $13.0 million decrease for SBX software
upgrades and a $20.0 million decrease for previous program
increases--for a total of $116.7 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63907C,
for SBX.

Ballistic missile defense targets

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $517.9 million was for PE 63915C ballistic missile
defense targets.
In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease
of $36.0 million, for a total of $486.4 million after the
separate $4.5 million increase for United States Forces Korea
Joint Emergent Operational Need, in RDTEDW, PE 63915C, for
ballistic missile defense targets.

Boost phase intercept laser scaling

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $148.8 million was for PE 64115C technology maturation.
While multiple efforts are ongoing within the Department of
Defense for directed energy, laser scaling is a key technology
that will enable the development of a boost phase intercept
capability specifically for missile defense.
In order to achieve a demonstration of a 500 kilowatt laser
and a best of breed 1-megawatt laser capability by 2024, which
will enable the development of a boost phase intercept
capability, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0
million, for a total of $228.8 million, in RDTEDW, PE 64115C,
for technology maturation. This additional funding was
requested by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency on the
Unfunded Requirements List.

Quartermaster Pathfinder

The budget request included $1.2 billion for Advanced
Innovative Technologies, Defense-wide Research, Development,
Technology, and Engineering programs, exhibit R-1, line 96,
Program Element 6425D8Z.
The committee is concerned that our adversaries continue to
target Department of Defense data to gain technological and
operational advantages, undermining U.S. data security and
integrity, as well as mission assurance. As such, the committee
supports the development and fielding of enhanced tools to
increase data security and integrity for priority missions and
supporting systems. The Quartermaster Pathfinder will provide
such capabilities, protecting data in both transit and rest to
enable increased mission assurance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million for the Strategic Capabilities Office's Quartermaster
Pathfinder.

Improved homeland defense interceptors

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $561.2 million was for PE 64874C improved homeland
defense interceptors.
In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease
of $139.4 million, for a total of $421.8 million, in RDTEDW, PE
64878C, for improved homeland defense interceptors.

Midcourse segment test for ballistic missile defense

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of
which $81.9 million was for PE 64887C ballistic missile defense
midcourse segment test.
In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the
fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease
of $9.3 million, for a total of $72.6 million, in RDTEDW, PE
64887C, for ballistic missile defense midcourse segment test.

Missile Defense Tracking System

The budget request for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) did
not include funding for the Missile Defense Tracking System.
The committee believes this capability is vital to the future
of the missile defense architecture and notes that the MDA
Director, Lieutenant General Greaves, stated in written
testimony on March 22, 2018, that ``integrated space and
terrestrial sensors for cuing, tracking, discrimination, and
targeting ballistic missile threats are critical to improving
missile defense architecture robustness.'' The committee is
concerned that as missile defense advanced technology develops,
and as the threat of ballistic, hypersonic, and other threats
emerge, missile defenses will require an advanced tracking and
sensing system and that the Department of Defense has not
prioritized this requirement.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $73.0
million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Defense-wide, for PE 1206895C, line number to be determined, to
establish a program of record for the Missile Defense Tracking
System. This additional funding was requested by the Director
of the MDA on the Unfunded Requirements List. Spacecraft and
sensor development efforts should be comparable and
complementary to efforts underway at the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency for its Blackjack program, and the
Director of the MDA shall provide a report prior to the
obligation or expenditure of funds demonstrating such
compatibility.

Items of Special Interest

Air Force nuclear acquisition programs

The committee continues to support the long-term
modernization of the nuclear triad but is concerned that the
Air Force's program offices responsible for these programs are
understaffed. The programs have separate system program offices
with little, if any, bridge between them in personnel despite
sharing a common building. Given that the Department of Defense
plans for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to be
operational in the 2030s and that the Minuteman III weapon
system is still undergoing sustainment, a coherent acquisition
plan must be developed in order to provide a smooth transition
for the intercontinental ballistic missile leg of the triad.
Therefore, the committee directs that no later than March
15, 2019, the Secretary of the Air Force report to the
congressional defense committees on the required staffing over
the next 5 years for nuclear acquisition programs within Air
Force Materiel Command. The report shall detail the acquisition
staffing shortfalls at each system program office and a plan to
remedy these shortfalls using funding from existing programs
for direct hiring of staff. The report shall further articulate
a long-term plan for the support of the nuclear modernization
program including all potential sources of qualified personnel
to ensure continuity of knowledge and expertise in the long
term, including the number of required positions over the next
5 years. Finally, the report shall describe a long-term plan
for phasing from the sustainment of the Minuteman III to the
acquisition of the GBSD, which is currently in a technology
management and risk reduction phase.

Airborne tracking and targeting system

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
has been developing and testing ballistic missile tracking and
surveillance using electro-optical-infrared (EO-IR) equipped
aircraft under an experimental program. The committee directs
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in coordination
with Commander, Pacific Command and Commander, Central Command
to perform an analysis of airborne EO-IR capability to support
the ballistic missile defense mission, the airborne platform
and sensor capabilities required to perform this mission, and
the impacts of the addition of an operational fleet of advanced
EO-IR sensors deployed on an airborne platform to the ballistic
missile defense system, to include integration and test
efforts, operational value for regional and homeland defense,
basing options, warfighter concepts of operation, and total
research, development, test, and evaluation and operations and
sustainment costs associated with deployment to the Pacific
Command and Central Command areas of responsibility. The
committee directs the Director to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than June 3, 2019, on
this analysis.

Assessment of and plan for experimentation with Iron Dome for short-
range air defense

The committee notes that, since 2011, the Congress has
authorized approximately $1.5 billion for the procurement of
Iron Dome batteries for Israel. Given the demonstrated success
of Iron Dome, the committee sees value in experimentation with
the Iron Dome system, including potential integration of the
Iron Dome command and control system with existing U.S. Army
Air and Missile Defense (AMD) systems, to assess its
suitability in addressing gaps in U.S. AMD capabilities.
However, the committee understands that there may be some
software code limitations and MILSPEC standard compliance
concerns. Therefore, the committee directs the Army to provide
to the congressional defense committees no later than December
31, 2018, an assessment of Iron Dome's suitability for the
Army's short-range air defense mission, a plan for
experimentation with and demonstration of Iron Dome, and a
determination of the feasibility of its use.

Common Minuteman III maintenance vehicle

The committee understands that each intercontinental
ballistic missile wing within the Air Force currently receives
a bare maintenance truck, which must then be individually
retrofitted in an ad hoc way to support maintenance operations
by enlisted airmen. The result is a cost- and labor-inefficient
process for the Minuteman III weapons system, which is common
to all three wings. The committee further understands that the
Air Force chose to pursue a common maintenance truck for each
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and U.S. European
Command sites for maintenance personnel to work with the B61
weapons and that this program has been successful.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 15, 2019, containing a plan to
transition to a common maintenance vehicle once the current
vehicle begins to age out over the next 5 years.

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber
classification

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees and the
Government Accountability Office no later than 90 days after
the enactment of this Act detailing the Department of Defense's
classification and declassification practices and policies
regarding its posture, order of battle, and policies in
cyberspace.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 1 year after receipt of these
procedures on these classification and declassification
practices, assessing their stringency, especially as compared
to other classification and declassification instructions, and
their potential effect in overclassification.
The committee is concerned that the Department's
classification policies are overly restrictive regarding
matters in cyberspace. Though it recognizes that the
Department's cyber posture and policies are particularly
sensitive, it is frustrated by the Department's excessive
secrecy, which reduces cyber's visibility, excludes otherwise-
informed voices from policy debates, and obviates justification
of posture and policy choices.

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber hygiene

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 1 year after enactment of this Act on
policies governing the Department of Defense (DOD) cyber
hygiene and the implementation of its Cybersecurity Culture and
Compliance Initiative and Cyber Workforce Management Program.
The report should assess: (1) The threat posed by the
Department's cyber hygiene weaknesses; (2) The Department's
cyber hygiene strategy and guidelines; and (3) The Department's
means of distribution, education, and implementation,
especially as compared to successful cybersecurity curricula in
the private and public sector. No later than 180 days after the
Comptroller General submits the report, the DOD Chief
Information Officer (CIO) shall submit a report summarizing his
comments and plan to address the Government Accountability
Office's concerns.
The committee is concerned that the Department's greatest
vulnerabilities may lie in architectures through which DOD
personnel interact with outside networks, making poor cyber
hygiene of the utmost priority. While the Department's measures
to negate the systematic vulnerabilities of its secure networks
are impressive, it must continue to improve its pedagogy of
best cyber practices throughout the Department and implement
its signature cybersecurity initiatives. These efforts lie
within the purview of the CIO, whose responsibilities and
authorities have changed precipitously in the last few years;
the committee hopes that this instability has not impaired the
Department's development and communication of cyber hygiene
best practices.

Comptroller General review of geographic combatant command integration
in nuclear planning and operations

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) identifies the
increased potential for regional conflicts involving nuclear-
armed adversaries, including Russia and North Korea. Further,
the NPR highlights the need for U.S. leadership, including U.S.
Combatant Commanders, to communicate across networked command
and control systems and integrate nuclear and non-nuclear
military planning and operations. The committee notes in
particular that the NPR states that the combatant commands will
plan, train, and exercise to integrate U.S. nuclear and non-
nuclear forces to deter limited nuclear escalation and non-
nuclear attacks. The committee supports this effort but is
concerned that that significant improvements will need to be
made in infrastructure and operations to support.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's plans
and efforts to incorporate the geographic combatant commands
into nuclear planning and operations, including command and
control responsibilities. The assessment should include: (1)
The role of the geographic combatant commands in the nuclear
mission; (2) The expertise within the geographic combatant
commands on nuclear planning and capabilities; (3) The ability
of geographic combatant commands to plan and conduct nuclear
operations, including command and control operations; and (4)
Any changes to command and control infrastructure that might be
needed to support the recommendation of the NPR.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing on preliminary findings to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
March 31, 2019, with a report to follow at a time agreed to at
the time of the briefing. The committee also directs the
Department of Defense, the military departments, and the
relevant combatant and subordinate commands to share relevant
information about nuclear planning, capabilities, and
operations with the Government Accountability Office in order
to enable this review.

Conventional Prompt Strike early limited operational capability

The committee continues to be encouraged by the commitment
of the Department of Defense to the Conventional Prompt Strike
(CPS) activity shown in the budget request and remains
supportive of the Department's approach of maturing and
demonstration key technologies needed by both land- and sea-
based CPS systems. The committee believes that, should the
Department determine that an early limited operational
capability for the CPS activity is required, the Department
should budget additional funding above the current plan in
order to avoid cost and schedule delays to the planned baseline
activity. The committee further directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Director of Navy Strategic
Systems Programs, to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees no later than November 1, 2019, on the
current progress of the Conventional Prompt Strike activity.

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology

The committee remains concerned about the proliferation of
unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), which include both the
unmanned aircraft and its operator controller device. For a
number of years, adversaries of the United States have used
UASs in international conflict areas to surveil, disrupt, and
threaten U.S. and allied personnel, facilities, and interests.
These challenges are compounded by the growing prevalence of
UASs domestically, which can be used for legitimate military,
commercial, and recreational purposes but could also be used
irresponsibly or with malign intent. The committee continues to
believe that critical military personnel, facilities, and
assets must be protected from these threats and encourages the
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop an array of counter-UAS
(CUAS) capabilities, particularly nonkinetic CUAS capabilities
that can: identify, monitor, and track UASs; operate passively
without interfering with existing military, civilian, and
commercial communication systems; and differentiate between
authorized and unauthorized UASs.
Where appropriate, the committee supports increased funding
to meet Joint Urgent Operational Needs validated by the Joint
Staff concerning CUAS solutions as well as the continued
development of CUAS tactics, techniques, and procedures to
protect DOD personnel, facilities, and assets. Additionally,
the committee recognizes the importance of developing necessary
legal authorities to manage a complex domestic environment. It
notes with appreciation DOD's efforts to inform and collaborate
with other relevant departments and agencies following the
adoption of section 1692 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and urges the
continued sharing of best practices across the government. The
committee expects that the DOD will continue to coordinate with
the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration, as required by section 1692 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91).

Cyber attacks by the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China
on Department of Defense affiliates

The committee remains concerned about reports that cyber
actors employed by or affiliated with the Russian Federation
and People's Republic of China have targeted Department of
Defense (DOD) systems, the systems of DOD contractors working
on sensitive U.S. military technology, and the personal
communications of U.S. military personnel. While the DOD has
taken steps to harden its systems, the committee remains
concerned that not enough is being done to detect and protect
against attacks by the Russian Federation and People's Republic
of China against non-government systems and other less-
protected targets affiliated with the Department of Defense.
Therefore, not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on cyber attacks against the Department of Defense in
the previous 24 months by agents or associates of the Russian
and Chinese governments against DOD systems, the systems of DOD
contractors working on sensitive U.S. military technology, and
the personal communications of U.S. military personnel. The
report shall describe what actions, if any, the Department is
taking or plans to take to protect less-hardened targets
against Russian and Chinese cyber operations and any associated
legislative authorities required.

Defense options for Guam

The committee notes that the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system protects the island of Guam against the
threat of rogue nations' short-, medium-, and intermediate-
range ballistic missiles. The committee strongly supports
efforts to augment the defense of Guam with a layered Ballistic
Missile Defense System, to include more capable interceptors
and sensors against these rogue threats. As the Department of
Defense continues to work on the Missile Defense Review, the
committee encourages the Department to consider the addition of
diverse missile defenses that would complement the THAAD system
and provide a layered defense to ensure protection against more
complex threats, such as cruise and hypersonic missiles.

Department of Defense efforts to cooperate with Department of Homeland
Security Fusion Centers

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
consider coordinating with the other relevant Federal
Government departments and agencies and each State that has a
National Guard with a defensive cyber operations element to
establish regionally-focused public-private cooperative
agreements or cross-functional task-forces, responsible for the
creation of strategies to coordinate and share information
among local, regional, and national entities, both public and
private, in order to protect vital assets in the cyber realm.
This cooperation might leverage divergent skillsets, extant
public-private partnership relationships, and high-performing
Federal Government assets in the joint defense of public and
private systems. These cross-functional task-forces could
comprise National Guard units, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, and private
sector companies with significant cybersecurity equities and
assets--in particular, in critical infrastructure sectors--
thereby strengthening active participation and sharing of
information, integrating threat mitigation strategies, and
growing the cyber network through shared experience.
Pursuant to this kind of coordination, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act on opportunities and efforts
underway to cooperate with DHS fusion centers and State assets
in cybersecurity. This report should relay: (1) The extant
collaboration between National Guard units, the rest of the
public sector, and the private sector in advancing
cybersecurity across their aggregated assets; (2) Planned
cooperation along these lines; and (3) The Secretary's
assessment of opportunities in cooperation in red-teaming,
incident response, data-sharing, provision of technical
expertise, common cybersecurity standards, and attachment to
DHS State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers.

Digital High Frequency Global Communications System

The committee is aware that the Air Force's High Frequency
Global Communications System (HFGCS) and the Navy's messaging
system are both transitioning to digital operations as part of
the modernization of the nuclear command, control, and
communications enterprise. The committee is also aware that the
interface between these two message traffic systems currently
relies on analog routing technology, which will become
unsupportable and must be replaced. However, the committee is
concerned that the Air Force does not currently provide
sufficient oversight of the HFGCS program relative to the
importance of its mission in disseminating emergency action
messages world-wide.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on the organization and management of the HFGCS no
later than March 15, 2019. The report shall include the
conversion of the system to digital operations as well as the
interface with Navy systems.

Diversified access to space with Federal Aviation Administration-
licensed spaceports

The committee continues to recognize the unique importance
of U.S. Federal Aviation Administration-licensed spaceports
and, when appropriate, encourages the use of such spaceports
and launch and range complexes for mid-to-low inclination
orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support of national
security space priorities. There are a number of spaceports
that are already developed or under development, including in
New Mexico, Alaska, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Arizona.
As the Department of Defense (DOD) and future national
security space missions begin to prioritize the use of smaller,
less expensive satellites and launch vehicles for rapid
reconstitution and resilience, the DOD should assess what
benefit nontraditional spaceports may offer in terms of cost
and flexibility.
The Department of Defense and future national security
space missions are focused on using smaller, less expensive
satellites and launch vehicles for rapid reconstitution and
resilience. Spaceports have proven small launch capability and
offer the U.S. government less costly launch sites and services
for these missions and an alternative to Vandenberg Air Force
Base, using commercial business practices to expedite DOD test
and development programs across a variety of mission sets and a
variety of launch and landing methods.
The committee believes that these federally-licensed, non-
federally-owned launch facilities--including the Spaceport
America in New Mexico, Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA),
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and Oklahoma Air &
Space Port--are available to help meet the requirements for the
national security space program from the DOD, Air Force Space
Command, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, and the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA). The committee notes that such spaceports
improve the resiliency of U.S. launch infrastructure and help
ensure consistent access to space to support national security
space priorities.
The PSCA has supported numerous launches for Air Force
Space Command including specific national security launches. It
remains the only commercial polar launch range available in the
United States, offering both orbital and sub-orbital
capabilities. A state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak
Island, Alaska, PSCA provides access to space for vital
government and commercial interests. The committee supports the
Missile Defense Agency's plan to conduct tests of the Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system from the PSCA and
encourages the DOD, where appropriate, to consider expanding
the use of federally-licensed, non-federally-owned launch
facilities to conduct national security launches and U.S. and
foreign missile tests.
The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska supported the Space
and Missile Defense Command Advanced Hypersonic test launch in
2014 and has both the facilities and range to support a variety
of other multi-service hypersonic tests. U.S. Strategic Command
is focused on developing a resilient response force that has
enhanced capabilities and that can respond to an adversary. The
PSCA has become a force multiplier in being the alternative
west coast range to Vandenberg Air Force Base, providing
additional capacity to test national security missions from an
existing spaceport.
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island,
Virginia provides medium-class and small-class launch
capabilities for the Department. It has launched numerous
missions for the DOD with its agency partners, Air Force Space
Command, the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and the
MDA. The MARS provides assured/responsive access to mid-to-low
inclination orbits for payloads up to 15,300 lbs. The committee
supports the Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office's planned
launch of the L-111 mission from the MARS by the end of 2018.
The MARS provides additional proven east coast capacity for
national security payloads, launches, flights of hypersonic
vehicles, and other DOD test programs.
The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Bums Flat, Oklahoma, is
the only space port in the United States to have a civilian
Federal Aviation Administration-approved spaceflight corridor
in the National Airspace System. This spaceflight corridor is
unique because it is not within military operating areas nor
within restricted airspace, which provides an operational
capability for space launch operations and associated
industries specialized in space-related activities.
Spaceport America in New Mexico is a licensed inland
spaceport that already provides surface-to-space open sky
launches landing in restricted flight zones. The New Mexico
Spaceport is located next to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR)
where the DOD controls the only restricted air space in the
country besides the White House. The committee notes that the
Department has studied hypervelocity testing at White Sands
Missile Range and its neighbor, Spaceport America, which has
the horizontal and vertical launch and landing capacities that
hypervelocity vehicles require. WSMR is preparing environmental
impact statements for inland flight corridors that will be able
to provide apogee-to-end-game suborbital instrumented flight
solutions.
The committee believes that it is also important for the
Department to diversify its launch options and capabilities to
include inland sites. From a national security perspective, a
secure multimodal spaceport is advantageous for future
hypervelocity development. Significant investments have been
made at inland space ports, which already have the
infrastructure in place to accommodate smaller space launches
for the Department.
The committee also directs the Air Force to conduct an
assessment of small launch providers to determine what payloads
are appropriate for launch and a plan for utilizing these
providers in future launches at these spaceports. The committee
directs the Air Force to brief the congressional defense
committees on this assessment within 90 days of enactment of
this Act.

Early Warning Radar upgrades

The committee notes an evolution of emerging space,
ballistic missile, and hypersonic threats from a growing number
of countries. The committee also notes that U.S. Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) has established operational requirements to
utilize the latest advancements in early warning radar
technology to ensure that the United States remains capable of
detecting, classifying, and tracking incoming threats as soon
as possible. While the committee supports the Air Force's plan
to add capabilities to the Ballistic Missile Early Warning
System and Precision Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array
Warning System, it is critical that detection range, target
classification, tracking accuracy, and cost-effective
operations are prioritized and funded as part of the initial
upgrades to meet current and emerging requirements.
The committee understands that early warning radar
platforms sold to U.S. partners include significant
technological advancements beyond those included in current
U.S. systems. The committee feels that it is imperative that
STRATCOM leverage technologies already developed that are
currently utilized by U.S. partners.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, detailing
possible upgrades of U.S. early warning radars to meet evolving
threats beyond those already being addressed by the Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Center. The report shall include a
roadmap required to achieve state-of-the-art performance at
U.S. early warning radar sites consistent with that of U.S.
partners, including radar sensitivity and energy efficiency.

Importance of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to United States
strategic deterrence

The committee has great interest in actions by the
Department of Defense to develop, build, and deploy the
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. The vessels in this
class will be the latest nuclear-powered ships, continuing a
distinguished line of technological advancement fostered by
Admiral Hyman Rickover. In particular, the committee notes the
important role of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also
known as Naval Reactors, in the Columbia program. Naval
Reactors' mission is to ensure the safe, reliable, and long-
lived operation of U.S. Navy nuclear powered ships. This in
turn ensures the viability of the undersea leg of the American
nuclear deterrence triad, of which the Columbia-class
submarines will be a critical piece.
The committee notes that in the development of the
Columbia-class submarines, the Navy is confronting an
aggressive schedule and a certain level of technological risk.
The committee therefore encourages Naval Reactors to renew its
efforts in the program, particularly after experiencing
difficulties in the manufacturing process and inadequate
oversight of contractors, to ensure that schedule and
technology risks are managed in accordance with best practices.
The committee also urges Naval Reactors to ensure that the
training of officer and enlisted personnel for nuclear power
jobs continues to meet the highest standards.

Laser communications

The committee supports efforts to develop laser
communications systems that enable the demonstration of secure,
covert, anti-jam, very high data rate transmissions using laser
communications. High data rate laser communications cross-link
systems are essential to a proliferated satellite
constellations architecture. The next critical challenge for
laser communications is the implementation into rugged, lower
cost, smaller packages for long-life, high-reliability
satellite and airborne applications critical to intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), other national security
applications, and commercial satellite constellations.
The committee supports the development and demonstration of
high-reliability, rugged laser communications cross-link
systems. Doing so will help leverage existing prototypes for
military applications as a proof-of-concept for an enhanced
layer of resilience for missile warning, navigation,
communications, weather, ISR, and other Department of Defense
space applications.

Launch vehicle reusability

The committee notes that the prospect of launch vehicle
reusability could have considerable cost savings for the
taxpayer. The committee believes equal consideration of
reusable and expendable launch vehicles should be given in all
future solicitations for which a reusable launch vehicle is
technically capable. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than January 31, 2019, on the Air Force's
plan for the use of reusable launch vehicles.

Layered ballistic missile defense

The committee notes that the current Ballistic Missile
Defense System (BMDS) protects the entire United States
homeland, including Hawaii, from the limited ballistic missile
threats of rogue nations. The committee strongly supports
efforts to bolster the defense of the homeland with a layered
BMDS, to included additional discrimination sensors and more
capable interceptors, against such threats. Because of its
location and the trajectories of potential threats, Hawaii is
uniquely positioned in this layered defense. As the committee
awaits the outcomes of the Department of Defense's Missile
Defense Review, the committee urges the Department to continue
to ensure defense of the homeland, including Hawaii, against
all ranges of cruise and ballistic missile threats, including
increasingly complex threats, to include hypersonic missiles.

Live fire training on missiles nearing demilitarization

The committee is aware that the Navy's leadership desires
additional fleet readiness training, including live-firing of
missiles in order to provide sailors with relevant and
realistic training while also thoroughly exercising ship
systems prior to deployment. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study that considers the
use of SM-3 missiles that are nearing demilitarization in fleet
live fire testing exercises. The Navy should determine if
reprogramming funding meant for demilitarization for these
missiles would be representative of the cost for fleet
readiness training, how many missiles the Navy would need for
testing, and if the missile is capable of certain necessary
software changes to be used in a fleet live fire testing
exercise. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the committee, no later than January 1,
2019, with the results of the study.

Long-term plan for weapons storage facilities

The committee understands that the Air Force plans to
construct new weapons storage facilities (WSFs) for storage and
maintenance of nuclear weapons to replace the current
facilities at Air Force bases that support nuclear operations.
These WSFs will also be required at the bases that the Air
Force chooses as bed-down locations for the B-21 bomber. The
committee supports the improvements in safety, security, and
capability that the Air Force expects to gain through the new
facilities but is concerned that the Air Force is currently
unable to answer questions about: (1) The different
requirements for WSFs at B-21 and B-52 bomber bases, missile
bases, and bases that host a mix of systems; (2) The
appropriate balance between cost and risk in design; and (3)
Basic design information about the one WSF already underway at
FE Warren Air Force Base. The committee is also concerned that
the Air Force is not appropriately synchronizing the
construction of these WSFs with the plans for basing of the B-
21 bomber and other force structure considerations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide to the congressional defense committees no
later than March 15, 2019, a long-term plan for the
recapitalization of weapons storage capacity for nuclear
weapons at Air Force bases in the continental United States.
The plan shall include current cost estimates for each site,
taking into account the differences in capacity required
depending on the systems at each bases, as well as a master
schedule that is sequenced with the Air Force's plan for the
rollout of the B-21 bomber.

Mapping of Department of Defense base stations

The committee urges the Department of Defense to reduce and
mitigate the risk from surreptitious mapping of sensitive
locations by personal devices, particularly with respect to
mapping based on Wi-Fi networks and other wireless devices. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to work in
consultation with industry, the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Transportation, and other relevant
agencies to review the unintended consequences of these
services and develop and implement any technical or operational
precautions to prevent the collection of wireless network
information and mitigate the risk associated with such
activities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the defense committees no later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act on any actions taken to
reduce and mitigate the risks associated with the mapping of
sensitive locations by personal devices.

Matters related to Department of Defense cyber ranges

The committee is concerned about two challenges that the
Department of Defense (DOD) faces with respect to its cyber
ranges: (1) The limitations posed by traditional data storage
and information technology paradigms; and (2) those offered by
extant software licensing practices.
The DOD maintains a significant number of ranges for
training, exercises, mission rehearsal, and test and
evaluation, but capacity is limited, and resources are
relatively scarce. Meanwhile, expensive modernization of
existing ranges is ongoing but faces the ever-present problem
of obsolescence. To consolidate its training development
resources, the Secretary of Defense designated the Army as the
executive agent for developing and maintaining a persistent
training environment equal to the needs of the Cyber Mission
Forces.
It is expensive to maintain technological parity in range
infrastructure and emulation capability with real networks in
foreign countries, the commercial networks making up the bulk
of cyberspace, and the networks of the DOD, which each and
collectively evolve rapidly. It is also difficult and costly
for any single or federated government ranges to achieve the
scale necessary for unit training and large-scale exercise
scenarios. Desirable attributes for a cyber range are the scale
and fidelity of authentic networks and the ability to rapidly
configure and reconfigure computing environments through
virtualization.
Modern commercial cloud offerings provide such
capabilities. In addition, as a shared resource, clouds spread
costs, are constantly modernized, and are extensible on demand.
The only element that may not yet be natively available on
commercial clouds is a network virtualization capability, which
is clearly important for a cyber range, but such technology is
available and could be integrated.
The DOD is embarking on a major cloud services initiative,
with commercial capabilities to be available at all levels of
classification. This initiative or other ongoing acquisitions
could provide a platform for the Persistent Training
Environment and all the other range requirements.
Software licenses are another major challenge for the
effective functioning of DOD cyber ranges. The DOD's
information technology purchases do not as a rule include the
rights to use software in a virtualized test or training
environment. Moreover, pricing for such rights under normal
licensing agreements would be unaffordable-or would prevent the
Department from achieving anything near the scale and fidelity
needed to clone varied networks for effective training and
exercises.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, who serves
as the Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), to conduct a study of the
feasibility of transitioning the DOD's cyber ranges to an
enterprise service on commercial cloud, in consultation with
the major stakeholders, including the Test Resource Management
Center, the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Army, U.S.
Cyber Command, and the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation. The PCA shall also consult with the Cloud Executive
Steering Group.
The committee also directs the PCA and the CIO to jointly
assess the software licensing practices in the Department and
consult with industry to identify viable license solutions that
give the DOD the right to unlimited virtualized test and
training instances. The committee encourages the DOD to use its
considerable leverage in buying power in negotiation of such
solutions.
The committee directs the PCA to update the committee on
these assessments within 180 days of the enactment of this Act.

Microsegmentation

The committee supports the increased use of automation to
provide a systematic and automated response to cybersecurity
breaches and network and system outages. The committee
recognizes the potential benefit of implementing automation in
support of a layered defensive strategy that includes logical
segmentation of networks within the data center
(microsegmentation) and of using automation in data and
application protection. The committee therefore directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees no later than March 1, 2019, on the
Department's long-term plan for utilizing such automation
capabilities and current fielding strategy.

Modular array for the direct distribution of integrated energy on small
satellites

The space industry is currently undergoing a substantial
transformation as next-generation, smaller, low-cost satellites
become increasingly available. These small satellites are
capable of being quickly launched in response to a rapidly
emerging need or threat. Unfortunately, key subsystems are not
yet fully developed, thus hampering the wide-scale deployment
of small satellites. Conventional satellite technology relies
on the manufacturing and assembly of three independent
subsystems for power: (1) solar panels, (2) a battery pack to
store the solar energy, and (3) power electronics. Each of
these subsystems is manufactured independently of one another
and then fitted together at an integrator. The committee is
interested in better understanding if combining the three
subsystems into one single system will result in lower
production costs and increased performance. In doing so,
modular, deployable solar arrays have significant potential to
accelerate the deployment of small satellites for critical
Department of Defense missions.
The committee therefore encourages the Air Force to explore
modular arrays and utilize high strain composites and novel
electric propulsion systems to reduce the cost and improve the
performance of small satellites. The committee directs the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on new small satellite power generation initiatives
within 60 days.

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Program Executive Office
staffing

The committee commends the Air Force's efforts to fully
staff the Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications (NC3)
Program Executive Office at Hanscom Air Force Base. Timely
upgrade of the NC3 program is critical to assure continued and
resilient security of the national command authority. The
committee encourages the Air Force to use all congressionally-
approved flexible hiring authorities and incentives to attract
qualified candidates to these positions.

On-orbit satellite servicing technology

The committee believes that satellite servicing could have
promising applications for the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Air Force
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by December 1, 2018, on a plan regarding the applicability of
satellite servicing capabilities. The briefing shall include: a
prioritized list, with accompanying rationale, of specific
operational and planned Department of Defense assets that could
benefit from satellite servicing missions; an assessment of the
feasibility and advisability of ensuring that future national
security space satellites and spacecraft are compatible with
commercial in-orbit servicing capabilities; and a discussion of
whether and how to integrate satellite servicing capabilities
as an integral part of operational resilience into the Joint
Capabilities Integration Development System for identifying
requirements, the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and
Execution System for allocating resourcing and budgeting, and
the Defense Acquisition System for developing and buying items
or services.

Portable satellite data receiver suites for deployed warfighters

The committee notes that the United States Air Force
Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Small Business Initiative Research
has provided funding for the development of a unique satellite
communication receive suite for warfighters in need of
reliable, portable connection to the Global Broadcast System
(GBS). The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
(DOD) Joint Program Office now includes these portable receive
suites as an approved solution for receive technology with
Military Satellite Communications on the existing GBS network.
The committee encourages the DOD and the Air Force to ensure
that these suites are made available to the warfighter. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force as the
executive agent to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on the strategy for GBS man-portable receive
suites no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.

Review of connected devices on military installations

The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to identify
and address risks related to servicemembers' use of personal
devices while deployed--especially with respect to the
potential tracking or identification of sensitive locations and
the possibility that this information is stored in foreign data
centers. The committee also urges the Department of Defense to
evaluate respective foreign governments' ability to access
information from U.S. servicemembers' personal devices during
their deployment, the privacy protections and legal processes
available to affected persons, and educational and directive
measures that the Department could take to minimize these
vulnerabilities.

Space Rapid Capabilities Office

The committee notes that the Air Force's budget request
indicates a full embrace of the need to rapidly develop and
field new space capabilities in order to outpace the threat in
2025 and dominate in 2028. The newly re-designated Space Rapid
Capabilities Office (Space RCO) will serve to meet this
aggressive goal and timeline and will seek to replicate the
culture and processes of the current Air Force Rapid
Capabilities Office. The additional funding requested will
enable the Space RCO to quickly meet new billeting requirements
under consideration and will allow the Space RCO to accelerate
projects that are considered urgent by the Air Force and Joint
Forces Command.
The committee continues to recognize the need to develop a
more responsive and resilient space architecture and supports
the vision of the Space Rapid Capabilities Office to rapidly
field new space capabilities. The committee is concerned,
however, that there is a lack of Sensitive Compartmentalized
Information Facility (SCIF) space that can be utilized by
potential partners near the Air Force's Space RCO. Partnerships
with commercial aerospace, including non-traditional and
startup aerospace companies, will enable the Space RCO to carry
out its mission to rapidly deploy assets to space. The
committee directs the Air Force Space Command to assess within
180 days of enactment the need and, if appropriate, to submit a
plan to the congressional defense committees for SCIF space
adjacent to or near the Space RCO, which could also be used by
appropriately cleared commercial partners in support of Space
RCO missions. The plan should include input from the Space RCO,
Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, and
other customers, including business entities that may utilize
the new SCIF space.

Transition of the Strategic Automatic Control and Communications System
to the Navy Nova Communications System

The committee understands that the Air Force is currently
considering various modifications to the existing Strategic
Automatic Control and Communications System (SACCS), which is a
critical program within the nuclear command, control, and
communications enterprise as the principal means for
transmission of data and emergency action messages to Air Force
locations around the world. The committee is concerned that
various connected systems will not be replaced in a timely
manner without disruption of the mission.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and the
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than March 15, 2019, containing a plan with: (1) Detailed
timelines to transition parts of the SACCS mission to the Navy
Nova messaging system; (2) The timeline for the replacement of
the Promina router technology, including date and location; (3)
The vulnerabilities in the transmission of data as SACCS front
end systems are replaced by the Nova system; and (4) The Air
Force's plans to mitigate those vulnerabilities.

United States-North Korea nuclear and missile threat reduction

The committee continues to monitor the progress of talks
between the United States and North Korea. The committee is
aware that North Korean nuclear and missile programs, both of
which pose significant unresolved threats to the United States
and our allies, have substantial physical infrastructure and
significant human capital associated with them and that North
Korea remains heavily involved in illegal trade. The committee
is also aware of the history of the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, which provided, and continues to provide,
funding and expertise to partner governments in the former
Soviet Union to secure and eliminate weapons of mass
destruction at the source.
Given the nature of North Korean threats and the scope of
effort that would be required to reduce them, the committee
directs the Department of Defense to provide to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 29, 2019,
a report, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE),
on the estimate of resources that would be required for the
denuclearization of North Korea and on how the DOE plans to
moderate potential nuclear and missile proliferation through
transfer of technology, materials, and scientific know-how.

TITLE XVII--COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Short title (sec. 1701)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the short title of this section as ``The Foreign Investment
Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018.''
Sense of Congress (sec. 1702)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress regarding the benefits of foreign
investment in the United States and continuing the United
States' commitment to open and fair investment policy, the
shifting threats to national security and the need to modernize
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) and export controls to address those threats, the
critical role of CFIUS in protecting national security and need
for adequate resources and for more robust international
outreach to allies to help them establish their own foreign
investment screening regimes, the need to collaborate with
allies to develop stronger multilateral export controls, and
additional factors CFIUS may consider in reviewing
transactions.
Definitions (sec. 1703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to update terms pertaining to the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) statute and add
several new terms. This provision would expand the purview of
CFIUS by explicitly adding four new types of covered
transactions, including: (1) Any non-passive investment by a
foreign person in any U.S. critical technology or critical
infrastructure company; (2) Any change in a foreign investor's
rights regarding a U.S. business; (3) Any other transaction,
transfer, agreement or arrangement designed to circumvent/evade
CFIUS; and (4) The purchase, lease, or concession by or to a
foreign person of certain real estate in close proximity to
military or other sensitive national security facilities. This
provision would also allow CFIUS to exempt investments from
countries meeting certain criteria from the new covered
transactions.
Acceptance of written notices (sec. 1704)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1)(c)(i) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) to update the rules governing the
acceptance of written notices.
Inclusion of partnership and side agreements in notice (sec. 1705)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) to require that any written notice or
filing to include copies of all related partnership agreements,
integration agreements, or other side agreements relating to
transactions, including any related to the transfer of
intellectual property.
Declarations for certain covered transactions (sec. 1706)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) to create declarations that would serve as
light filings, limited to five pages in length, that must be
filed in advance of completing the transaction. This provision
would allow any party to voluntarily file a declaration as an
alternative to submitting a notice and would also require
parties to file a declaration for certain investments where a
foreign government has a substantial interest.
Stipulations regarding transactions (sec. 1707)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act (Public Law
81-774) to allow all parties to a transaction to stipulate, in
a notice or a declaration, that is a covered transaction and,
if so, that it is also a foreign government-controlled
transaction.
Authority for unilateral initiation of reviews (sec. 1708)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to confirm the circumstances under which the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
may unilaterally initiate a review, as well as how a
transaction attains safe harbor status.
Timing for reviews and investigations (sec. 1709)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to gives the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS) extra time to review each transaction by
extending the overall review period from 30 days to 45 days and
authorizes CFIUS to extend any investigation for one 30-day
period in extraordinary circumstances, at the request of the
head of a lead agency.
Monitoring of non-notified and non-declared transactions (sec. 1710)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States to establish a mechanism to identify any
covered transactions for which a notice or declaration has not
been filed and on which information is reasonably available.
Submission of certifications to Congress (sec. 1711)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(3)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) to enhance congressional oversight by
requiring the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States (CFIUS) to submit its certifications regarding
transactions to both the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Analysis by Director of National Intelligence (sec. 1712)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(b)(4) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to require the Director of National Intelligence,
for each National Security Threat Assessment (NSTA), to
identify any recognized intelligence collection gaps, update
the NSTA upon require by a lead agency for any past cleared
transaction involving a mitigation agreement, and submit the
NSTA to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence after conclusion of
action by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States.
Information sharing (sec. 1713)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(c) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to enhance collaboration and coordination with
United States allies and partners by allowing the disclosure of
information to any domestic or foreign governmental entity,
under the direction of the chairperson, if necessary for
national security and pursuant to appropriate confidentiality
and classification arrangements, or when the parties have
consented for information to be disclosed to third parties.
Action by the President (sec. 1714)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to confirm the authority of the President to
suspend or prohibit a transition or require divestment when
necessary to protect national security.
Judicial review (sec. 1715)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to clarify that civil action challenges against
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States actions
and findings may only be brought in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Membership and staff of Committee (sec. 1716)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to clarify the rules that apply to the appointment
and hiring of members and staff of the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States.

Actions by the Committee to address national security risks (sec. 1717)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to grant the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS) the authority to suspend a transaction
during a review or investigation, use mitigation agreements and
conditions to address situations where the parties have chosen
to abandon a transaction without a presidential order, and
impose interim mitigation agreements and conditions for
national security risks posed by completed transactions while
they are undergoing CFIUS review.

Modification of annual report and other reporting requirements (sec.
1718)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States (CFIUS) to include in its annual report a
description of the outcomes of any review sand investigations
that year, including whether a mitigation agreement was entered
into or condition imposed and whether the President took any
action.

Certification of notices and information (sec. 1719)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721(n) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public
Law 81-774) to require that each notice submitted to the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States be
accompanied by a written statesmen from the parties certifying
that the notice or information is accurate, complete, and
compliant with the rules.

Implementation plans (sec. 1720)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to
develop implementation plans for carrying out relevant sections
of this Title and to submit them to Congress within 180 days of
enactment of this Act.

Assessment of need for additional resources for Committee (sec. 1721)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to determine whether and to what extent the expansion
of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States'
(CFIUS) responsibilities would necessitate additional resources
for CFIUS and its members to perform their functions, and
include the request for any such additional resources for each
member agency in the annual budget requests to Congress.

Funding (sec. 1722)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law
81-774) to establish a fund for the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States.

Centralization of certain Committee functions (sec. 1723)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law
81-774) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to
centralize certain functions of the Committee on Foreign
Investment of the United States (CFIUS) to include monitoring
non-notified and non-declared transactions, within the
Department of Treasury to enhance CFIUS interagency
coordination and collaboration.

Conforming amendments (sec. 1724)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law
81-774) to make technical and conforming changes to the
statute.

Requirements to identify and control the export of emerging and
foundational technologies (sec. 1725)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
an interagency process led by the President to identify
emerging and foundational technologies that are not currently
subject to export controls and establishes an interagency
process to control such technologies.

Export control enforcement authority (sec. 1726)

The committee recommends a provision that would enhance and
harmonize the Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
export control enforcement authorities with those authorities
granted special agents in other law enforcement and
investigative agencies by allowing BIS to engage in overseas
investigations and undercover penetration activities and also
appropriately protects confidentiality of information.

Prohibition on modification of civil penalties under export control and
sanctions laws (sec. 1727)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law
81-774) that would prohibit the President from modifying any
civil penalty implemented by the Government of the United
States with respect to a Chinese telecommunications company
pursuant to a determination that the company has violated and
export control or sanctions law of the United States until the
dates that is 30 days after the President makes a certification
to the appropriate congressional committees.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security (sec. 1728)

The committee recommends a provision that would rename the
position of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Export
Administration to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry
and Security to more properly align the position title with the
organization and role.

Limitation on cancellation of designation of Secretary of the Air Force
as Department of Defense Executive Agent for a certain Defense
Production Act program (sec. 1729)

The committee recommends a provision that would bar the
Department of Defense from making any change to the Secretary
of the Air Force acting as the program manager or executive
agent under Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) until Congress explicitly authorizes such a
change.

Review of and report on certain defense technologies critical to the
United States maintaining superior military capabilities (sec.
1730)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report to Congress, no later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, from the Secretary of Defense and
the Director of National Intelligence on key United States
industries and research and development activities critical to
maintaining a national security technology capability, where
over the next five years it is anticipated a domestic
industrial base shortfall will exist and domestic industry
cannot or will not provide the needed capacity in a timely
manner without assistance authorized in existing statutory
authorities enacted for such purposes.

Briefing on information from transactions reviewed by Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States relating to foreign
efforts to influence democratic institutions and processes
(sec. 1731)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Treasury, no later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, to provide a briefing to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on Financial Service of the House of
Representatives.

Effective date (sec. 1732)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the date of applicability of the provision contained within
this title.

Severability (sec. 1733)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that any provision of this title is held to be invalid, the
remaining provisions and the application of that provision to
other persons shall not be affected.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the Defense Agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions made in prior base closure rounds.
The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account.
The fiscal year 2019 budget requested $11.4 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$9.4 billion was requested for military construction, $1.6
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
$267.5 million for base closure activities, and $171.1 million
for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
activities totaling $11.4 billion. The total amount authorized
for appropriations reflects the committee's continued
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2023,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2023, whichever is later.
Effective date (sec. 2003)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
effective date for titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of
October 1, 2018, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.

TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.0 billion for military construction and $707.2 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2019.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.1 billion for military construction for the Army and $707.2
million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2019.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2101 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the
significant unfunded military construction requirements and has
included an additional $107.6 million for many of these
projects. The authorized amount is listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for two projects until October 1, 2019,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2020, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2016 project (sec.
2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization of a project authorized by section 2101 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(division B of Public Law 114-92) until October 1, 2023, or the
date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2024, whichever is later.

TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.5 billion for military construction and $419.1 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2019.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.6 billion for military construction for the Navy and $419.1
million for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2019.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2201 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded
military construction requirements and has included an
additional $304.8 million for many of these projects. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.

Family housing (sec. 2202)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing
units of the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed
$16.6 million.

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2019. This
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active components of the Navy and the Marine
Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.7 billion for military construction and $395.7 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2019.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.8 billion for military construction for the Air Force and
$395.7 million for family housing for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2019.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2301 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2019.
The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military
construction requirements and has included an additional $149.2
million for many of these projects. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Air Force for fiscal year 2019. This provision would
also authorize funds for facilities that support family
housing, including housing management offices, housing
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family
housing units of the Department of the Air Force in an amount
not to exceed $75.2 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain phased project
authorized in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (sec. 2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3679) for Royal Air Force
Croughton, for JIAC Consolidation Phase 1, the authorization
contained in the table in section 2301(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B
of Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1153) for Croughton Royal Air
Force, for Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex (JIAC)
Consolidation Phase 2, and the authorization contained in the
table in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public
Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2697) for Royal Air Force Croughton, for
JIAC Consolidation Phase 3, to change the location to United
Kingdom, Unspecified.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 project
(sec. 2306)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328) for construction of a basic military
training recruit dormitory at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, to
include a 26,537 square meter dormitory.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 project
(sec. 2307)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B
of Public Law 115-91) for the construction of a cyberwork
facility at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, to
include a facility of up to 4,462 square meters.
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 projects
(sec. 2308)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Air Force to carry out certain military
construction projects using funds available for research,
development, test, and evaluation.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.7 billion for military construction for the Defense
Agencies for fiscal year 2019.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.4 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies
for fiscal year 2019.
Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy resilience and
conservation projects. The budget request included $150.0
million for the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment
Program (ERCIP). The committee recommends an increase of $84.4
million.
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the Defense Agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also provide an
overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for four projects until October 1, 2019,
or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2020, whichever is later.
Authorization of certain fiscal year 2018 project (sec. 2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2401(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 105-91) by
authorizing the Fort Bliss Blood Processing Center for
$8,300,000.

TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $171.1 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2019 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends
the requested amount.

Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $171.1 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program for fiscal year 2019.

Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to accept four military construction
projects totaling $518.6 million from the Republic of Korea as
in-kind contributions.

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $467.4 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2019 for facilities for the National Guard and
reserve components.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$661.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019
for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components.
The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in the
tables in this title and section 4601 of this Act.

Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant
unfunded military construction requirements and has included an
additional $126.0 million for many of these projects. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2019 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.

Subtitle B--Other Matters

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project
(sec. 2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B
of Public Law 114-92) for construction of a Reserve Training
Center Complex at Dam Neck, Virginia, to authorize the
construction at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Story,
Virginia.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 project
(sec. 2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization in section 2601 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public
Law 115-91) for additions and alterations to the National Guard
Readiness Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to include the
construction of a new readiness center. Additionally, if a new
readiness center is constructed, this provision would limit the
amount available for its construction to the previously
authorized $15.0 million.
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 project
(sec. 2613)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to carry out a certain military
construction project and acquire approximately 8.5 acres of
land in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania using unobligated Navy
military construction reserve funds. The provision would also
require the Secretary of the Navy to provide the relevant
information in accordance with section 2851(c) of title 10,
United States Code, regarding the project and notify the
congressional defense committees if it becomes necessary to
exceed the estimated project cost, in accordance with section
2853 of title 10, United States Code.

TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $267.5 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The
committee recommends $267.5 million for these efforts. The
detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure
(BRAC) round (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that prohibits the
Department of Defense from conducting another base realignment
and closure (BRAC) round. The committee notes that although the
Department of Defense did not request authorization to conduct
a BRAC round in the request for fiscal year 2019, the
Department is focusing its efforts this year on studying
facility optimization. The committee is encouraged by these
efforts and looks forward to reviewing these results prior to
the request for any future BRAC round.

Items of Special Interest

Aligning base realignment and closure goals with infrastructure

The committee recognizes that in 2005 the Department of
Defense implemented a plan for Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC). The Secretary of Defense identified three goals for the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure: (1) Transform the military;
(2) Foster jointness; and (3) Reduce excess infrastructure to
produce cost savings. The committee recognizes the efforts of
the Department since that time and the efforts of communities
across the United States in the relocation of military service
members and units. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense must keep the promises that it made during the 2005
Base Realignment and Closure in regards to its current
property, facilities, and training spaces, as our military and
associated communities are growing and modernizing based on
these 2005 metrics.
The condition of our bases and surrounding communities,
along with the welfare of our personnel and serviceability of
our equipment, remains a key component to the readiness of our
military. The Department must also continue improving existing
infrastructure and pursuing military construction projects that
effectively meet the demands of our future force, as opposed to
asking this committee for a future complete overhaul of its
posture at home. The committee finally notes that this Act
prohibits the Department of Defense from conducting an
additional BRAC round.

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes

Additional authority to obtain architectural and engineering services
and construction design for defense laboratory modernization
pilot program (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to extend the pilot
program for the use of Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) funds for military construction projects
until 2025 and clarify that RDT&E funds may be used to obtain
architectural and engineering services and carry out
construction design.
Modification of contract authority for acquisition, construction, or
furnishing of test facilities and equipment (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2353(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
authority for the contract of a military department to provide
for the acquisition or construction of facilities and
equipment, by either the government or the contractor, that the
secretary of the military department concerned determines to be
necessary for the performance of a contract for research,
development, or both.
The committee believes that the current Air Force
Instruction (AFI) approval process for acquisition or
construction projects seeking to use the authority in section
2353 of title 10, United States Code, does not adequately
address construction funded through contracts for research,
development, or both. The addition of language to AFIs
pertinent to acquisition and construction of facilities and
equipment authorized by section 2353 of title 10, United States
Code, is necessary for a more effective and seamless
implementation of this authority.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to issue a revised AFI that better supports the use of
section 2353 of title 10, United States Code, and to brief the
committee not later than September 30, 2018, on the results of
a review of the authorities that support the acquisition or
construction of facilities and equipment for research and
development contracts, the supporting AFIs to carry out such
projects, and any plans to update the AFI to better utilize the
existing authorities of Research and Development Contracts.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
outside the United States (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
subsection (h) of section 2808 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 from 2019 to 2020 and
limit the funding authority to $50,000,000.
Unspecified minor military construction projects related to
revitalization and recapitalization of Defense Industrial Base
Facilities (sec. 2804)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a
pilot program authority until 2023 for unspecified minor
military construction projects of $6.0 million in support of
defense industrial base facilities.
The committee recognizes the need to modernize defense
industrial base facilities in order to support the
modernization of individual weapons systems. The flexibility
afforded by the use of funds in unspecified minor construction
projects would allow installation commanders to quickly adapt
to changing needs and requirements, especially as depots and
other facilities historically face difficulty in competition
for military construction funds.
Congressional oversight of projects carried out pursuant to laws other
than Military Construction Authorization Acts (sec. 2805)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2802(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to include
all congressional defense committees in any notification
requirements set forth by any law other than a Military
Construction Authorization Act.

Subtitle B--Project Management and Oversight Reforms

Updates and modifications to Department of Defense Form 1391, Unified
Facilities Criteria, and military installation master plans
(sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) Form 1391 to include a disclosure
of whether or not a proposed project falls within or partially
within a 100-year floodplain and, if so, a specific risk
mitigation plan. The provision would also require a process for
risk analysis and a report on planned mitigation measures for
buildings, require disclosure as to whether a project was
included in the prior year's future years defense program,
require an energy study or life cycle analysis, amend the
United Facilities Criteria to ensure building risk data are
incorporated into planned designs and modifications, require
consideration of energy and climate resiliency efforts in major
military installation master plans, amend the definition of
military installation resilience, and include threats to
military installation resilience for adjustment and
diversification assistance.
Work in Process Curve charts and outlay tables for military
construction projects (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to include as
an addendum to the 1391 forms submitted with the budget request
for each fiscal year a Work in Process Curve chart and monthly
outlay table for funding, obligations, and outlay figures for
any military construction project over $35,000,000.

Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

Land exchange, Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona (sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of the Air Force permissive authority to convey 58
acres on Air Force Plant 44, Arizona to Tucson International
Airport and the ability to construct new explosives storage
facilities to replace the existing facility that would be
conveyed with this provision while ensuring that the new
explosives storage facilities is within the end-of-runway clear
zone.
Land conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (sec. 2822)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of the Air Force permissive authority to convey 80
acres of land adjacent to Eglin Air Force Base to the Air Force
Enlisted Village. The committee notes that, should the
Secretary invoke this authority, the conveyance would include a
reversionary interest clause.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Commemoration of Freedman's Village (sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow an
easement of approximately 0.1 acre of land outside Arlington
National Cemetery for the purpose of recognizing Freedman's
Village.

Strategic plan to improve capability of Department of Defense training
ranges and installations (sec. 2832)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, working through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to develop a
comprehensive strategic plan for using existing authorities to
address training constraints to improve operations training
capabilities requiring training enablers available in and
outside the United States. The committee notes that this would
be an annual report with a sunset of 2022 and would replace the
existing Sustainable Range Report, which is set to expire in
2018.

Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation program (sec.
2833)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 160 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to participate in a program to mitigate
the environmental effects of defense activities on Indian lands
and culturally connected locations.

Defense community infrastructure pilot program (sec. 2834)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2391 of title 10, United States Code, by granting the
Secretary of Defense permissive authority to make grants,
conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement funds to assist
State and local governments in addressing deficiencies in
community infrastructure. The provision would require that the
State or local government contribute not less than 30 percent
of the funding for the community infrastructure project. The
authority set forth in this provision would expire on September
30, 2023.

Representation of installation interests in negotiations and
proceedings with carriers and other public utilities (sec.
2835)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 501(c) of title 40, United States Code, by requiring
that any representative of the General Services Administration
that will represent a military installation in any negotiation
must first notify the senior mission commander of the
installation and solicit and represent the interest of the
installation as determined by the installation's senior mission
commander.

White Sands Missile Range land enhancements (sec. 2836)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
White Sands National Park and abolish White Sands National
Monument. The establishment of a national park would increase
the public recognition of the significant resources of White
Sands. This provision would modify the boundary of White Sands
National Park and convey 3,737 acres of land from the Secretary
of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. This provision
would also convey 8,592 acres of land from the Secretary of the
Army to the Secretary of the Interior.

Authority to transfer funds for construction of Indian River Bridge
(sec. 2837)

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of Defense permissive authority to transfer up to 50
percent of the shared costs for the construction of the Indian
River Bridge to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.

Items of Special Interest

Assessment of military structures in permafrost areas

The committee remains concerned that climate-related events
are already being observed at Department of Defense (DOD)
installations and that the effects of which will continue to
have an impact on both the security environment in which
military forces operate and on DOD infrastructure worldwide.
For instance, the committee notes that melting permafrost in
Alaska had led to costly and unexpected repairs of facilities.
Additionally, the committee is concerned that a failure to
address identified deficiencies can over time put DOD military
readiness, mission capability, military construction, and
valuable taxpayer resources at risk.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to submit
to the congressional defense committees a report with an
assessment of military structures in permafrost area no later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. The assessment
shall include: (1) An inventory of all military structures
currently built in permafrost areas, including Alaska,
Greenland, and northern European countries to include all
planned new military construction in permafrost areas for the
next 4 fiscal years; (2) An inventory of which structures at
Eielson Air Force Base, if any, are experiencing stresses and
impacts associated with melting permafrost foundation
degradation to include proposed repairs or new construction;
(3) An explanation of how the DOD determines what constitutes a
permafrost area; (4) A description of the process by which the
DOD determines whether a deep foundation is necessary in a
permafrost area, including cost factors; (5) An assessment of
how design and construction standards account for foundation
integrity in the event of permafrost degradation; (6) A
description of the cost difference between building on standard
foundations and deep foundations associated with permafrost
degradation to include repairs over the life of the project for
both; and (7) Any other information or recommendations the
Assistant Secretary of Defense determines appropriate.

Encouraging the use of existing authorities for construction of future
National Guard Readiness Center

The committee recognizes that the South Carolina National
Guard plans to construct the Summerville National Guard
Readiness Center in fiscal year 2021 and commends the South
Carolina National Guard for working to acquire Federal land
with Joint Base Charleston in submission of a Base Action
Request for approval. The committee encourages the Secretary of
the Air Force to leverage existing authorities to make land
available at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina to the
Secretary of the Army for the purpose of constructing a
permanent National Guard Readiness Center. Further, the
committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to use his
authority to issue a revocable license to the South Carolina
National Guard for the purpose of constructing a permanent
National Guard Readiness Center on the land made available if
the Secretary determines the license to be in the interest of
the Army.

Excess capacity estimates

The committee notes that a report by the Comptroller
General of the United States titled ``Defense Infrastructure:
DOD Needs to Improve the Accuracy of its Excess Capacity
Estimates'' (GAO-18-230) found that the Department of Defense's
(DOD) 2017 excess capacity analysis ``does not have the
accuracy and analytical sufficiency to provide Congress with a
reasonable estimate of the actual excess capacity within DOD.''
Additionally, the Comptroller General found that the DOD ``used
a baseline for the analysis that did not fully take into
account changes in infrastructure needs since 1989, assumptions
in its analysis that are not reasonable, and methods that were
not sufficient or implemented consistently.''
The committee recognizes that DOD has been unable to
conduct a full Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) analysis;
however, the committee is concerned that without initial excess
capacity estimates that are accurate and sufficient, the
Department may not be providing the Congress with the
information necessary to make a fully informed decision on a
future BRAC round.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to
reliably update the baseline used for estimating excess
infrastructure capacity, using assumptions in estimating excess
capacity that are considered realistic and credible, and
develop guidance to improve the methods used in the analysis in
order to ensure consistent implementation of DOD's methodology
to produce reliable estimates of excess capacity across the
DOD. Additionally, the guidance shall, at a minimum, clearly
define major installations, identify if and when it is
appropriate to include a facility in more than one category to
take into account multiple missions at the facilities, and
provide protocols for assessing excess capacity at joint bases.
The Assistant Secretary shall brief or report on this guidance
to the committee not later than February 1, 2019.

Federal land transfer for South Carolina National Guard

The committee recognizes that the South Carolina National
Guard intends to establish a Federal training site and commends
the South Carolina National Guard for working with the Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina on a potential location for
the site. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to use existing
authorities to make land available at the Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina to the Secretary of the Army for the
purpose of establishing a Federal training site for the South
Carolina National Guard. Further, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to use his authority to issue a revocable
license to the South Carolina National Guard for the purpose of
establishing a Federal training site on the land made available
if the Secretary determines the license to be in the interest
of the Army.

Incremental funding of military construction projects

The committee remains very concerned that the Department of
Defense is unable to plan, program, or request incrementally
funded military construction projects. The committee strongly
believes that the Department should seek relief from this
restrictive policy set forth by the Office of Management and
Budget. The committee notes that incremental funding authority
would ensure greater stability and predictability in the
planning process, reduce acquisition costs, and enable the
Department to execute more work in place on other
infrastructure requirements in the fiscal year. Furthermore,
the committee believes that incremental funding of large and
complex military construction projects ensures continuous
oversight and opportunities to adjust the authorization of
appropriation level for projects, should issues arise or
requirements change over the course of construction.
To date, the committee is not aware of any example where a
military construction project has been left with inadequate
funding or has not been executable as a result of an
incremental funding approach. The committee strongly encourages
and expects the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to work with
the committee, and the other appropriate congressional defense
committees, to develop a framework that enables the planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution of incrementally funded
military construction projects.
As reflected in the funding tables, the committee continues
to believe in the military value and effective use of taxpayer
funding to incrementally authorize appropriations for certain
military construction projects. The committee notes that, as
readiness is the Department's number one priority, utilizing
incremental funding, the committee was able to authorize dozens
of additional projects including National Guard readiness
centers, fire stations, barracks, and training ranges. As such,
the authorized funding shall be immediately available and
allotted to contract for the full scope of authorized military
construction projects. The committee finally notes that
executing additional infrastructure projects at a faster pace,
while maintaining said oversight, only improves readiness.

Installation and facilities physical security gaps

The committee notes that the physical safety and security
of Department of Defense personnel and infrastructure are
paramount to readiness. The committee is concerned, however,
that there are places where major Department activities are not
located behind a fence line or other physical access barriers.
The committee notes that such locations are essentially open to
the public, putting high visibility concentrations of military
personnel at risk. The committee recognizes that the Department
must prioritize where to invest a limited pool of resources
when it comes to infrastructure and resources. The committee
encourages the Department to seek out innovative ways to
improve physical security. However, the committee must first
have a better understanding of how many installations or
facilities exist without appropriate physical access barriers.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to
provide a briefing no later than September 30, 2018,
identifying all installations and locations that host more than
25 civilian employees or uniformed personnel and that lack
appropriate physical access barriers. The briefing shall list
each location in priority order and include a cost estimate to
provide the necessary security measures at each location
identified.

National Maritime Intelligence Center Parking

The committee notes that the National Maritime Intelligence
Center (NMIC) is located on the Suitland Federal Center in
Suitland, Maryland. The Office of Naval Intelligence is the
host command of the NMIC, and the facility is required to
provide safe and adequate parking for all tenet commands, which
include 3,700 employees. Since 2008, parking at the NMIC has
been inadequate due to significant facility expansion for
roughly 700 new employees and the discovery of structural and
safety deficiencies of the NMIC parking garage. The committee
notes that Navy engineers have assessed that the useful life of
the garage will expire between 2021 and 2023. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a planned
strategy to correct these deficiencies to the committee no
later than March 1, 2019.

Process for prioritizing funding and identifying facilities for
demolition

The committee remains concerned about the quality and
condition of many Department of Defense (DOD) facilities around
the globe, despite the Department's receiving significant
increases in funding for facilities sustainment restoration and
modernization (FSRM) in recent years to tackle the challenge of
maintaining facilities and addressing infrastructure
maintenance backlogs. As such, the committee strongly
encourages the Department to increase investments in its FSRM
accounts in order to match its rhetoric and accepted level of
risk to date. Additionally, the committee strongly urges the
DOD to ensure that its installation master plans include a
comprehensive restoration and modernization project plan that
uses existing conversion authorities to the maximum extent
practicable and identifies installation deficiencies
detrimental to the mission.
The committee is also aware that the DOD has sought FSRM
funding for the demolition of facilities that no longer meet
operational requirements and, in some cases, hinder readiness
across its installations. The committee has received testimony
in previous years about the cumulative negative impacts of
poorly maintained facilities on the overall readiness of the
Department.
The committee is concerned that only a small amount of its
FSRM is programmed for the demolition of aged and no longer
usable facilities. Demolition of these facilities is important
to sustaining readiness for the warfighter and reducing
potential health and safety risks at DOD installations.
However, the committee is concerned about how the DOD will
prioritize funding and identify buildings and facilities for
demolition. As such, the committee directs the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than
March 1, 2019, on the Department's process to: (1) Identify
buildings and facilities for demolition; (2) Prioritize
demolitions across the DOD enterprise; and (3) Provide a list,
by military service, to include the Reserve and Guard
components, of buildings and facilities (by installation) that
will be demolished with fiscal year 2019 funding and could be
demolished across the future years defense program if
additional resources were to become available.

Review of Army Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization

The committee notes that the Army Corps of Engineers has
established nine Centers of Standardization for military
construction projects, whose purpose is to achieve savings and
benefits in the programming, design, and construction of Army
facilities. The committee understands that the intent of these
Centers is to improve facilities design quality, reduce design
and construction costs and time, and reduce change orders
during construction, among other things.
However, the committee notes that a Government
Accountability Office report, published March 27, 2018, titled
``Defense Infrastructure: Action Needed to Increase the
Reliability of Construction Cost Estimates'' (GAO-18-101),
found that Department of Defense guidance for construction
projects does not fully incorporate the necessary steps for
developing reliable cost estimates. Additionally, projects
consistently face cost overruns and schedule delays. The
committee is encouraged by the efforts by the Corps of
Engineers to ensure that facilities are constructed at the
lowest cost while still trying to ensure mission capability for
users. However, the committee is concerned that trends indicate
that the Centers are not achieving their stated goal.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the effectiveness of the Centers of
Standardization no later than April 1, 2019. The report should
address at a minimum the following information: (1) To what
extent the Army Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization
achieve their stated objectives; (2) The metrics that the Corps
of Engineers uses to measure achievements thought to be derived
from the Centers; (3) To what extent their measurement
techniques comport with best practices for such measurement;
(4) What potential liability the Centers incur in the event
that problems develop during construction; (5) To what extent
the Departments of the Navy and Air Force have comparable
Centers or other procedures for achieving standardization and,
if they do, how effectively the lessons learned are shared; and
(6) Any additional information that the Comptroller General
deems relevant.

Standoff weapons facility project at Andersen Air Force Base

The committee notes that Andersen Air Force Base enables a
heavy bomber presence in the Pacific Area of Operations. An
integral aspect of this operation is the ability to load
munitions rapidly onto bombers using the large rotary launchers
associated with these aircraft. The committee is supportive of
efforts to develop a standoff weapons facility at Andersen Air
Force Base that will contain the necessary high bays and heavy
loading equipment to facilitate the storage and loading of
these rotary launchers and to facilitate timely load out of
munitions into bombers.

TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included $921.4 million for military
construction in fiscal year 2019 for overseas contingency
operations.
The committee recommends $852.4 million for military
construction in fiscal year 2019 for overseas contingency
operations.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Army military construction project for fiscal year 2019 for
overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2902)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy military construction projects for fiscal year 2019 for
overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2903)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2019
for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2904)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Defense Agencies military construction projects for fiscal year
2019 for overseas contingency operations. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2905)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction in the overseas
contingency operations account for fiscal year 2019.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the activities of the Department
of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
defense environmental clean-up activities.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's other
defense activities.
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
nuclear energy activities.

Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Clarification of roles and authorities of National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
roles and authorities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
The committee has been outspoken in its concern about
diversion between the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) defense programs and the requirements
of the Department of Defense (DOD). Through life extension and
major alterations programs, production capacity, and research
into future weapons technology, the NNSA executes its highest
responsibility, the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. The
committee therefore sees the linkage between NNSA and DOD as
being enormously important and is committed to the preservation
of the provider-customer relationship.
The appropriate balance in the relationship of the NNSA
with the broader Department of Energy (DOE) is critical in this
respect. The NNSA was established in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) as a
semi-autonomous organization within the DOE. The Congress
recognized that the nuclear production and maintenance mission
required some cabinet-level representation and saw benefits in
its cohabitation with the atomic energy and national
laboratories infrastructure in the DOE. However, it was wary of
the influence of the DOE's competing interests on the weapons
programs, which are intended to meet the requirements of the
DOD.
The committee believes that these fears have been realized
to an extent. Though the NNSA has so far provided the nuclear
weapons that the DOD needs for the nuclear deterrent, delays
and cost overruns in the NNSA's weapons programs and recent
disagreements about major programs associated with weapons
activities evince the tensions inherent in the current
organizational structure. The committee is not alone in this
opinion. The November 2014 Augustine-Mies Panel found ``that
the relationships among NNSA, the Secretary of Energy, and the
DOE headquarters are not properly aligned with mission needs
today, and are in need of major reform'' and that flawed DOE
organizational and process features have damaged the NNSA's
ability to carry out its mission. The January 2007 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report, ``National Nuclear Security
Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Management
of the Nation's Nuclear Programs'' (GAO 07-26), corroborated
the panel's findings: ``[A]lthough some NNSA programs have set
up procedures for interacting with DOE, other programs have
not, resulting in organizational conflict'' (page 34). In 2009,
the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States found that ``the governance
structure of the NNSA is not delivering the needed results.
This governance structure should be changed.'' The commission
concluded that ``it is time to consider fundamental changes.''
The committee is frustrated that so many reports, studies,
and panels have come to the same conclusions for more than 15
years, yet no structural change has been implemented. The
statement of managers accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239),
out of which the Augustine-Mies panel was authorized, expressed
nearly identical concerns: ``. . . the status quo is not
working and must not be continued. The weaknesses of the
current system, including an overly bureaucratic system, weak
accountability, ineffective oversight, insufficient program and
budget expertise, and poor contract management have been
repeatedly demonstrated . . .'' The conferees asserted that
``[f]urther slippage in project schedules is unacceptable, and
could undermine the credibility of the nation's nuclear
deterrent.'' The conferees concluded with the hope that the
creation of the advisory panel that would become Augustine-Mies
would ``provide a bipartisan solution to fix this system.'' The
committee notes that project schedules have continued to slip
in the 5 years since the writing of that statement, among other
continued challenges, and few of the recommendations of the
panel have been adopted.
Therefore, in order to realign the immediate
responsibilities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration and reinforce its autonomy within the Department
of Energy, the committee recommends a provision that would
amend the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-
91) as it relates to the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (Public Law 106-65), and the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (Public Law 107-314) to empower the NNSA within the
DOE. The provision would make the Administrator of the NNSA
responsible for a number of duties currently assigned to the
Secretary of Energy, clarify the lines of authority at the DOE
to emphasize the role of Administrator, and expand the remit
and authority of the Administrator in statute. The provision
would implement a number of recommendations of the Augustine-
Mies panel and other studies, including those regarding the
formulation of NNSA-specific procedure and regulation wherever
possible. The provision would not remove the Administrator from
the Secretary of Energy's lines of authority nor divorce the
defense mission from the DOE's functions, nor would it divorce
health and safety standards at NNSA facilities from DOE
regulations. Finally, the provision would repeal the statutory
cap on federal employees, in order to allow the NNSA to hire at
sufficient levels to carry out its mission.
The committee does not intend for this provision to be
interpreted as an indictment of the current Secretary of Energy
or Administrator of the NNSA, who have performed admirably.
Rather, the committee seeks to address a number of structural
impediments independent of its particular operators, and, in
doing so, create resilient and enduring organizations to enable
the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA to
carry out the Department of Energy's defense mission.
National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
permanent the personnel demonstration project carried out by
the National Nuclear Security Administration since 2008.
Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (sec. 3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
delegation of review under section 57b of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (Public Law 83-703), as amended (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)(2))
on a case-by-case basis as consistent with the national
security interests of the United States. The provision would
also require that, during a review under section 57b of title
42, United States Code, if such a request is denied, the
Department of Energy be told the reasons for denial during
interagency review or, if the review period is extended, the
reason for this extension, to be reported to the congressional
defense committees on an annual basis. Finally, the provision
recommends the Department of Energy establish rules for civil
fines for a violation of section 57b of title 42, United States
Code.
Extension of enhanced procurement authority to manage supply chain risk
(sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
6 years, the authority for the Secretary of Energy to take
certain actions with regard to the protection of the supply
chain of the Department of Energy.
The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has used this authority in an
appropriately limited fashion since it was granted in 2014. The
committee believes it is important for the NNSA to have the
same tools to protect its supply chain as the Department of
Defense and the intelligence community. The committee also
notes that the Comptroller General of the United States is
currently assessing NNSA's use of this authority as mandated by
section 3113(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The committee looks
forward to the results of this assessment.
Pilot program on conduct by Department of Energy of background reviews
for access by certain individuals to national security
laboratories (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
pilot program for 2 years at the Department of Energy (DOE) to
independently conduct background reviews prior to admitting
citizens of nations on the current sensitive countries list to
national security laboratories. The provision would require the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Director of
National Intelligence to continue to conduct background reviews
under section 4502(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50
U.S.C. 2652(a)) for the duration of the pilot program.
The committee understands that, under current law, the
conduct of these reviews by the FBI often takes longer than the
15 days required by statute and requires duplication of effort
between the FBI and the DOE. While the committee has confidence
that the DOE's counterintelligence capability has improved in
the 2 decades since the current statute was enacted, the
committee is concerned that the DOE may not currently have the
capacity to take on this additional workload. The committee
hopes that, at the end of this pilot program, the DOE will be
able to demonstrate that it is capable of conducting the same
reviews with no adverse counterintelligence outcomes and that
the committee will be able to recommend a permanent transfer of
this responsibility from the FBI to the DOE.
Extension of authority for acceptance of contributions for acceleration
of removal or security of fissile materials, radiological
materials, and related equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide
(sec. 3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3132(f)(7) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to
extend the Secretary of Energy's authority to accept, retain,
and use contributions for the accelerated removal of and
security for fissile materials, radiological materials, and
related equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide through 2023.
Modification of limitation on development of low-yield nuclear weapons
(sec. 3117)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
several findings regarding the changes in the international
security environment related to nuclear forces over the last
decade. The provision would also modify section 3116(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law 108-136) to remove the requirement for specific
authorization by the Congress prior to commencement of
engineering development, or any subsequent phase, of a low-
yield nuclear weapon. Instead, the provision would require that
the Secretary of Energy specifically request funding for such a
weapon in the annual budget request before commencing
engineering development, in accordance with section 4209(a) of
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2529(a)), which
requires the Secretary to specifically request funds in the
annual budget request for any activity related to the
development of a new or modified nuclear weapon.
Prohibition on use of funds for terminating activities at MOX facility
(sec. 3118)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Energy from obligating or expending any funds
for fiscal year 2019 or prior fiscal years to terminate
construction and project support activities at the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility or to convert such facility to be
used for any purpose other than its original mission.

Subtitle C--Plans and Reports

Modifications to cost-benefit analyses for competition of management
and operating contracts (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
requirement for the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees containing a cost-benefit
analysis of competition of management and operating contracts
for NNSA laboratories and production plants following each
award of such a contract such that the report would be due 30
days after the transition to a new contract is complete.
Section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the NNSA to
provide this report. The committee notes that this section was
amended to direct the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct comprehensive reviews of these reports after the
award of the Consolidated Nuclear Security contract in January
2013. The committee remains interested in whether the
consolidation of the contracts for the Pantex Plant and the Y-
12 National Security Complex has resulted in the cost savings
expected at contract award.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
provide a comprehensive briefing, as defined in subsection
(d)(2) of section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as amended, of
the contract awarded to Consolidated Nuclear Security in
January of 2013.
Review of defense environmental cleanup activities (sec. 3122)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to coordinate with the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on a review of the
cleanup activities in the Office of Environmental Management.
Survey of workforce of national security laboratories and nuclear
weapons production facilities (sec. 3123)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees a
proposal to conduct a survey of the employees of the NNSA
laboratories and production plants.
The committee notes that several of the studies and
commissions on the management of the NNSA over the last decade
have recommended the collection and analysis of more data in
order to monitor trends and document improvement where it
exists. The committee believes that, because contract employees
make up such a large percentage of the NNSA workforce, the NNSA
should undertake a systematic survey program, similar to the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, for staff at the labs and
plants.
Elimination of certain reports (sec. 3124)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
certain reporting requirements for the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management Office.
Implementation of Nuclear Posture Review by National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3125)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the implementation of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) by the NNSA. The report would identify specific actions
associated with the NPR, including the office of primary
responsibility for each action and key milestones associated
with it. The report would be required to be submitted no later
than December 1, 2018.

Budget Items

W76-2
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $4.7 billion for directed
stockpile work, of which $113.9 million was for the W76-1 life
extension program.
The committee understands that at the time of the
compilation of the budget request, the Department of Defense
had not yet finalized the Nuclear Posture Review, and as such
the recommendations of that review were not included in the
NNSA's budget request. The committee understands that the
NNSA's preferred method for fielding the low-yield submarine-
launched ballistic missile recommended by the Nuclear Posture
Review is a modification of a small number of W76-1 warheads
currently undergoing life extension. The amendment to the
fiscal year 2019 budget request submitted to the Congress on
April 13, 2018, requests a transfer of $65 million from the
W76-1 life extension program to the W76-2 warhead modification
program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $65.0
million to the W76-1 life extension program line, for a total
of $48.9 million, and an equivalent increase to the new W76-2
warhead modification line.
Defense nuclear waste disposal
The budget request for the Department of Energy included
$120.0 million for the Yucca Mountain and Interim Storage
programs, of which $30.0 million was from the Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of
$30.0 million to the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.

Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General review of domestic uranium industrial base
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
requires enriched uranium for several military purposes. To
produce enriched uranium, the material is processed through a
number of stages to concentrate and refine it. The NNSA has
consistently asserted that international agreements to which
the United States is a party prohibit the use of enriched
uranium for military purposes if the uranium or its enrichment
carry obligations for ``peaceful use'' under these agreements.
The committee is unconvinced that the NNSA has thoroughly
explored the possible interpretations of the relevant
international agreements to take advantage of existing uranium
processing capability in the United States.
Accordingly, however, the NNSA intends to rely on the small
domestic commercial uranium industry to provide uranium,
technology, and facilities to produce unobligated enriched
uranium that can be used for military purposes. The last
operating enrichment facility that produced unobligated
enriched uranium closed in 2013. The NNSA is in the process of
evaluating new enrichment options, which is expected to produce
a plan to construct a new domestic uranium enrichment facility
beginning at the end of the next decade.
Beyond enrichment, the committee is concerned that other
stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining, milling,
and conversion, are at risk in the United States due to market
conditions. The committee is also concerned that the NNSA is
not appropriately planning mitigation strategies to ensure that
these capabilities will be available to support a future
domestic uranium enrichment plant.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the
NNSA's planning and assumptions for the future unobligated
uranium industrial base. The review should include: (1) The
extent to which the NNSA has conducted studies evaluating the
uranium industrial base critical to the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle
and the conclusions of these studies; (2) The extent to which
the NNSA has explored possible changes to the interpretation of
the international agreements that lead to the ``peaceful use''
restrictions on uranium; (3) The extent to which the NNSA has
developed plans for obtaining unobligated uranium services if
any element of the domestic uranium process is disrupted; and
(4) The extent to which the NNSA is incorporating this
information into its ongoing analysis of alternatives for
reestablishing a domestic uranium enrichment capability,
including in terms of reference, selection of alternatives for
analysis, or guiding documents for the analysis.
The Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than
March 31, 2019, with a report to follow at a date to be agreed
upon at the time of the briefing.

Comptroller General review of Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

The committee notes that the Department of Energy exercised
the waiver authority outlined in section 3121(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91) to halt construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
Fabrication Facility. The committee further notes that this
certification was received by the Congress 1 day after the
House Armed Service Committee completed its mark-up and less
than 2 weeks before committee mark-up in the Senate for the
fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. This has
made it extremely difficult for the committees to determine the
correct funding level for the program in the fiscal year 2019
National Defense Authorization Act, as the committee does not
know if the certification followed the requirements for cost
evaluation as called for in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the cost analyses conducted by the
Secretary of Energy to support the exercise of the waiver
relating to construction and project support activities at the
MOX facility and the dilute and dispose alternative. This
review shall determine, at a minimum, if the cost analyses
followed best practices as required by section 3121(b) and
shall also evaluate whether the cost analyses for the life-
cycle cost estimates for both the MOX facility and the dilute
and dispose alternative are comparable, credible, accurate, and
meet appropriate costing standards for Government
Accountability Office.
A written report on the findings shall be submitted to the
congressional defense committees no later than August 31, 2018,
with a briefing to follow.

Comptroller General review of strategic radiation-hardened
microelectronics

The trustworthiness of the supply chain that provides
specialized components for U.S. nuclear weapons must be
sustained to deal with potential sabotage, malicious
introduction of an unwanted function, and subversion of a
function without detection. The National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has a single radiation-hardened silicon
microelectronics facility, Microsystems and Engineering
Sciences Applications at Sandia National Laboratories, which
relies on tools and capabilities that are no longer supported
by manufacturers. Following a determination of mission need in
2016, the NNSA recently concluded an analysis of alternatives
for a trusted microsystem capability to ensure that needs are
met in the 2025-2040 timeframe.
The committee is concerned that required critical decisions
and planning for budget resources at the NNSA are not being
made sufficiently quickly to ensure that the required flexible
and responsive operational capability is maintained after 2025.
The committee therefore directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to brief the congressional defense committees no later
than November 1, 2018, on the status, plans, and estimated
budget requirements, including any required facility expansion
or new construction, to meet the Nation's program requirements
for unique strategic radiation-hardened microsystem
capabilities after 2025.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review NNSA's efforts to recapitalize its
strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics design and
production capacity, addressing the following questions: (1)
What is known about the extent of risks to NNSA's supply chain,
and what steps are being taken to address these risks in the
near-term? (2) To what extent did NNSA's analysis of
alternatives and related cost estimates meet best practices for
such studies? (3) To what extent is the NNSA managing
radiation-hardened microelectronics as a strategic commodity?
The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2019,
with a report to follow at a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing.

Independent review of Engineering Assessment of plutonium pit
production

In April of 2018, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) completed an engineering assessment
report on plutonium pit production. The report provides the
Administrator's recommended alternative for the NNSA's
plutonium capabilities. The proposed strategy repurposes the
Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River
Site combined with expanded capabilities at Plutonium Facility-
4 at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
On May 4, 2018, the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council
(NWC) provided the written certification required by section
3141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018 (Public Law 115-91). In making the required certification
accepting NNSA's recommendation, the Chairman stated there are
``major construction and certification schedule risks inherent
in the plan. [The Department of Energy] must address these
risks to preclude failure to meet military requirements by
2030.'' The NWC's certification letter went on to state, ``To
reduce risk, the recurring and non-recurring cost estimates for
the recommended alternative must be refined prior to the next
construction major milestone decision point, estimated to be in
year 2021.''
In light of the specific concerns raised by the Chairman of
the NWC, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA,
no later than July 1, 2018, to enter into an arrangement with a
federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) to
conduct an independent review and assessment of the soundness
and validity of the estimated construction and life-cycle costs
of each of the alternatives analyzed in NNSA's April 2018
engineering assessment report on plutonium pit production. Not
later than October 1, 2018, the report of the FFRDC shall be
submitted to the Administrator of the NNSA, and, 10 days after
receiving the report of the FFRDC, the Administrator shall
submit the report to the congressional defense committees.

Nuclear smuggling detection in Iraq

The committee directs the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration to submit a report no later
than March 29, 2019, to the congressional defense committees on
a plan to work with the Iraqi government to develop the
capability to detect nuclear smuggling using both fixed and
mobile systems. Such plan shall also include assisting Iraq in
minimizing the use of isotopic sources where appropriate and
developing the infrastructure necessary to meet regulatory
requirements to safely handle and store such devices.

Repackaging of Transuranic Waste Drums at the Idaho National Laboratory

On April 11, a drum of transuranic waste ruptured at the
Idaho National Laboratory's Radioactive Waste Management
Complex, resulting in spilled sludge in the facility and the
contamination of several responding firemen with plutonium. In
the immediate aftermath of this incident, the Department of
Energy (DOE) found three other drums with similar contents that
had also ruptured, and additional investigations on the cause
of the event are ongoing. Additionally disturbing, however, is
the confirmation from DOE officials that at least the initial
ruptured drum had already undergone remediation to prepare it
for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),
although it had not yet been certified for shipment. After a
2014 accident in which a transuranic waste drum prepared at Los
Alamos National Laboratory ruptured in the WIPP underground,
the DOE required that all of its cleanup undergo a complete
review of waste preparation and certification procedures to
ensure such an accident was not repeated. However, if these
drums had not ruptured at the Idaho National Laboratory, it is
conceivable that the incident could have occurred at the WIPP,
causing further setbacks for the waste repository that is still
recovering from the prior incident.
Therefore the committee directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the repackaging of
transuranic waste at the Idaho National Laboratory and
determine the extent to which there are procedures in place to
prevent such an incident and whether deficiencies exist in
these procedures or their implementation that must be remedied.
The GAO shall work with the committee on a date suitable to
both parties for the final report with interim briefings on the
findings.

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration regulation

The committee is aware that many of the commissions and
reviews examining the governance and operations of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have reported complaints
about overlapping, overly restrictive, and inefficient
regulation from the NNSA and its laboratories and plants. Some
have identified this as one source of increasing costs and
failures to meet mission requirements on time. The committee
believes excessive regulation may also encourage haphazard
enforcement by the NNSA and extreme risk-avoidance on the part
of contractors. Without a more detailed understanding of
exactly which practices create unnecessary burden, however, the
committee believes that NNSA will be unable to improve its
regulatory practices.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to solicit from each of its eight national security
laboratories and plants specific regulations or sources of
regulation that are particularly burdensome. The Administrator
shall provide such input unedited to the congressional defense
committees, along with input from NNSA itself, no later than
March 15, 2019. These reports shall include data supporting the
frequency with which negative consequences from these practices
are observed and descriptions of the specific impact of each
practice in areas such as: morale, recruiting, and retention;
increased costs to the government; and damage to mission
capability. The reports should also identify a given practice's
intended purpose and how these benefits could otherwise be
achieved.
The Administrator shall also provide the complete findings
to the Comptroller General of the United States, who shall
brief the congressional defense committees on the extent to
which findings are consistent with recommendations made by
other external oversight bodies, along with any other
assessment of the report.

Roadmap for National Nuclear Security Administration production
capability improvements

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the
attention in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to
infrastructure at the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). As the NPR states, ``[a]ll previous NPRs highlighted
the need to maintain a modern nuclear weapons infrastructure,
but the United States has fallen short in sustaining a modern
infrastructure that is resilient and has the capacity to
respond to unforeseen developments.''
The committee is particularly concerned about the capacity
of the complex's production infrastructure, as the NNSA enters
full-scale production on four life extension programs and
begins planning for follow-on work as well. Resilient
production infrastructure and workforce at the Pantex Plant,
Savannah River Site, Kansas City National Security Campus, and
Y-12 National Security Complex are just as critical to
maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent as laboratory
infrastructure. The committee was pleased to see the NPR
recommend that NNSA develop a ``roadmap that sizes production
capacity to modernization and hedging requirements'' and is
interested in the details of this roadmap.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to submit the detailed roadmap described in the NPR to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2019,
including infrastructure and staffing requirements, key
milestones, and an assessment of any additional capacity needed
at the NNSA's production sites in order to meet modernization
and hedging requirements.

Status of Russian nuclear security upgrades

Recognizing the significant investment the United States
made in the past to improving nuclear material security at
dozens of sites in Russia, through the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) former Material Protection,
Control, and Accounting program and related programs, the
Committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to provide a
report to the committee no later than January 1, 2019 on NNSA's
current efforts related to Russian nuclear security.
In particular, the committee requests that this report
focus on how NNSA is monitoring nuclear material security in
Russia, and the extent to which NNSA-funded security
improvements have been sustained over time, in light of reduced
Russian cooperation. In addition, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to report to the
committee on these issues no later than February 1, 2019. The
Comptroller General's report should address: (1) NNSA's ability
to sustain investments it has made to ensure that Russia's
nuclear complex and stockpiles of nuclear material remain
secure; (2) How NNSA is verifying that Russia is sustaining and
maintaining the nuclear material security equipment and
technology supplied previously by the United States; (3) Any
gaps or shortcomings that could jeopardize the sustainability
of those security systems going forward; and (4) The extent to
which other countries are working to support nuclear security
in Russia.

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at
$31.2 million consistent with the budget request.

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
Permanent authority of Secretary of Transportation to issue vessel war
risk insurance (sec. 3502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 539 of title 46, United States Code, to make permanent
the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide
vessel war risk insurance. This provision was requested by the
Department of Defense.

DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
FY 2019 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)

DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................ 3,782,558 3,782,558
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................. 3,355,777 420,000 3,775,777
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY................................ 4,489,118 -314,000 4,175,118
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY........................... 2,234,761 -106,700 2,128,061
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................... 7,999,529 -263,200 7,736,329
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................ 19,041,799 175,400 19,217,199
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................. 3,702,393 -21,900 3,680,493
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC............................ 1,006,209 -13,000 993,209
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY......................... 21,871,437 1,255,500 23,126,937
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................... 9,414,355 -40,500 9,373,855
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS................................. 2,860,410 -113,476 2,746,934
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE........................... 16,206,937 413,800 16,620,737
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE............................ 2,669,454 2,200 2,671,654
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 2,527,542 2,527,542
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE...................... 1,587,304 1,587,304
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 20,890,164 78,096 20,968,260
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE................................. 6,786,271 500 6,786,771
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND....................... 100,025 100,025
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................ 130,526,043 1,472,720 131,998,763

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY.................. 10,159,379 119,572 10,278,951
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY.................. 18,481,666 55,177 18,536,843
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.................... 40,178,343 574,901 40,753,244
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.................... 22,016,553 399,038 22,415,591
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE.......................... 221,009 10,900 231,909
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 91,056,950 1,159,588 92,216,538
EVALUATION...............................................

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............................. 42,009,317 -385,700 41,623,617
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES......................... 2,916,909 2,916,909
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............................. 7,399,295 7,399,295
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............................. 49,003,633 362,700 49,366,333
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS..................... 6,832,510 6,832,510
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES......................... 1,027,006 1,027,006
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE....................... 271,570 271,570
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........................ 42,060,568 902,700 42,963,268
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE....................... 3,260,234 54,800 3,315,034
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.............................. 6,427,622 12,600 6,440,222
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE................... 36,352,625 162,100 36,514,725
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.............................. 1,908,347 -11,000 1,897,347
UNDISTRIBUTED............................................. 0 -216,520 -216,520
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............ 199,469,636 881,680 200,351,316

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL........................................ 140,689,301 -3,062,080 137,627,221
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS....... 7,533,090 7,533,090
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL.................... 148,222,391 -3,062,080 145,160,311

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................................... 1,542,115 1,542,115
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....................... 993,816 993,816
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.............. 787,525 787,525
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........................... 329,273 329,273
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................................... 33,729,192 2,500 33,731,692
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................. 37,381,921 2,500 37,384,421

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS... 606,656,941 454,408 607,111,349

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY...................................................... 1,011,768 107,600 1,119,368
NAVY...................................................... 2,543,189 29,563 2,572,752
AIR FORCE................................................. 1,725,707 26,450 1,752,157
DEFENSE-WIDE.............................................. 2,693,324 -290,036 2,403,288
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD....................................... 180,122 126,000 306,122
AIR NATIONAL GUARD........................................ 129,126 54,000 183,126
ARMY RESERVE.............................................. 64,919 64,919
NAVY RESERVE.............................................. 43,065 43,065
AIR FORCE RESERVE......................................... 50,163 14,400 64,563
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM.......................... 171,064 171,064
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 8,612,447 67,977 8,680,424

FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY........................................ 330,660 330,660
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY........................... 376,509 376,509
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS....................... 104,581 104,581
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.......... 314,536 314,536
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE................................... 78,446 78,446
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE...................... 317,274 317,274
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE................... 58,373 58,373
IMPROVEMENT FUND.......................................... 1,653 1,653
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND.................................... 600 600
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING.................................. 1,582,632 0 1,582,632

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY...................................................... 62,796 62,796
NAVY...................................................... 151,839 151,839
AIR FORCE................................................. 52,903 52,903
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE.................... 267,538 0 267,538

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS... 10,462,617 67,977 10,530,594

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 617,119,558 522,385 617,641,943
051).....................................................

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS

DISCRETIONARY SUMMARY BY APPROPRIATION
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES

ENERGY PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY............................................ 136,090 136,090
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS................................. 136,090 0 136,090

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES........................................ 11,017,078 11,017,078
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.......................... 1,862,825 1,862,825
NAVAL REACTORS............................................ 1,788,618 1,788,618
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES............................. 422,529 422,529
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION........ 15,091,050 0 15,091,050

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP............................. 5,630,217 5,630,217
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.................................. 853,300 853,300
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL............................ 30,000 -30,000 0
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........ 6,513,517 -30,000 6,483,517

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS............. 21,740,657 -30,000 21,710,657

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILTIIES SAFETY BOARD................... 31,200 31,200
SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION........ 31,200 0 31,200

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 21,771,857 -30,000 21,741,857
AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS............

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 21,771,857 -30,000 21,741,857

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST...... 638,891,415 492,385 639,383,800

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)

PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................ 363,363 363,363
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................. 1,802,351 1,802,351
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY................................ 1,107,183 1,107,183
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY........................... 309,525 309,525
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................... 1,382,047 1,382,047
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................ 80,119 80,119
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................. 14,134 82,800 96,934
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC............................ 246,541 -2,000 244,541
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................... 187,173 187,173
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS................................. 58,023 58,023
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE........................... 1,018,888 1,018,888
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE............................ 493,526 22,800 516,326
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE...................... 1,421,516 1,421,516
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 3,725,944 3,725,944
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE................................. 572,135 572,135
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT..................................... 12,782,468 103,600 12,886,068

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY.................. 325,104 325,104
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY.................. 167,812 167,812
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.................... 314,271 314,271
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.................... 500,544 500,544
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION...... 1,307,731 0 1,307,731

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............................. 18,210,500 18,210,500
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES......................... 41,887 41,887
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............................. 110,729 110,729
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.......................... 4,497,421 4,497,421
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.......................... 702,029 702,029
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............................. 4,757,155 4,757,155
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS..................... 1,121,900 1,121,900
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES......................... 25,637 25,637
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE....................... 3,345 3,345
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........................ 9,285,789 9,285,789
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE....................... 60,500 60,500
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.............................. 15,870 15,870
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE................... 8,549,908 -550,000 7,999,908
SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................ 47,382,670 -550,000 46,832,670

MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL........................................ 4,660,661 4,660,661
SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL............................... 4,660,661 0 4,660,661

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................................... 15,190 15,190
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.............. 153,100 153,100
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........................... 24,692 24,692
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................................... 352,068 352,068
COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......................... 1,400,000 1,400,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS............................ 1,945,050 0 1,945,050

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY...................................................... 261,250 -69,000 192,250
NAVY...................................................... 227,320 227,320
AIR FORCE................................................. 345,800 345,800
DEFENSE-WIDE.............................................. 87,050 87,050
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 921,420 -69,000 852,420

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET 69,000,000 -515,400 68,484,600
REQUEST..................................................

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)............. 707,891,415 -23,015 707,868,400

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 600).... 64,300 64,300

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
TITLE X--GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY....................... [5,000,000] [4,500,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY...................... [4,500,000] [3,500,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051)............... 617,119,558 522,385 617,641,943
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 21,771,857 -30,000 21,741,857
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS................................. 69,000,000 -515,400 68,484,600
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)................................... 707,891,415 -23,015 707,868,400

OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR
ALREADY AUTHORIZED

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES................................ 39,000 39,000
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY............... 8,000 8,000
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY.................. 36,000 36,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).................. 83,000 0 83,000

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM................. 120,000 120,000
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053)................ 120,000 0 120,000

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS.................................... 8,034,000 8,034,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)...................... 8,034,000 0 8,034,000

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)......... 8,237,000 0 8,237,000

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051)........................... 686,202,558 6,985 686,209,543
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 21,891,857 -30,000 21,861,857
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)................................ 8,034,000 8,034,000
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050.......... 716,128,415 -23,015 716,105,400

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY RETIREMENT 7,720,000 7,720,000
FUND...........................................................
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY........................ 1,794,000 1,794,000
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS............................................. -1,855,000 -1,855,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).................. 7,659,000 0 7,659,000

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND 1,277,000 1,277,000
OTHER..........................................................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053)................ 1,277,000 0 1,277,000

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND...................... 50,000 50,000
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER........................ 514,000 514,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)...................... 564,000 0 564,000

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050)................ 9,500,000 0 9,500,000

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051)........................... 693,861,558 6,985 693,868,543
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 23,168,857 -30,000 23,138,857
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)................................ 8,598,000 8,598,000
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)....................... 725,628,415 -23,015 725,605,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 UTILITY F/W 0 744 0 744
AIRCRAFT..........
3 MQ-1 UAV........... 0 43,326 0 43,326
4 RQ-11 (RAVEN)...... 0 46,416 0 46,416
ROTARY
7 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 48 753,248 48 753,248
IIIA REMAN........
8 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 174,550 0 174,550
IIIA REMAN AP.....
9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 12 284,687 12 284,687
IIIB NEW BUILD....
10 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 58,600 0 58,600
IIIB NEW BUILD AP.
11 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 49 988,810 49 988,810
MODEL (MYP).......
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 0 106,150 0 106,150
MODEL (MYP) AP....
13 UH-60 BLACK HAWK A 18 146,138 18 146,138
AND L MODELS......
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 6 99,278 6 99,278
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER AP 0 24,235 0 24,235
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
18 UNIVERSAL GROUND 0 27,114 0 27,114
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(UAS).............
19 GRAY EAGLE MODS2... 0 97,781 0 97,781
20 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 52,274 0 52,274
RECON (MIP).......
21 AH-64 MODS......... 0 104,996 0 104,996
22 CH-47 CARGO 0 7,807 0 7,807
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
23 GRCS SEMA MODS 0 5,573 0 5,573
(MIP).............
24 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) 0 7,522 0 7,522
25 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 20,448 0 20,448
(MIP).............
26 UTILITY/CARGO 0 17,719 0 17,719
AIRPLANE MODS.....
27 UTILITY HELICOPTER 0 6,443 0 6,443
MODS..............
28 NETWORK AND MISSION 0 123,614 0 123,614
PLAN..............
29 COMMS, NAV 0 161,969 0 161,969
SURVEILLANCE......
30 DEGRADED VISUAL 0 30,000 0 30,000
ENVIRONMENT.......
31 GATM ROLLUP........ 0 26,848 0 26,848
32 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 103,246 0 103,246
33 UAS MODS........... 0 17,644 0 17,644
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
34 AIRCRAFT 0 57,170 0 57,170
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
35 SURVIVABILITY CM... 0 5,853 0 5,853
36 CMWS............... 0 13,496 0 13,496
37 COMMON INFRARED 0 36,839 0 36,839
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
38 AVIONICS SUPPORT 0 1,778 0 1,778
EQUIPMENT.........
39 COMMON GROUND 0 34,818 0 34,818
EQUIPMENT.........
40 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 0 27,243 0 27,243
SYSTEMS...........
41 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 63,872 0 63,872
42 INDUSTRIAL 0 1,417 0 1,417
FACILITIES........
43 LAUNCHER, 2.75 0 1,901 0 1,901
ROCKET............
44 LAUNCHER GUIDED 0 991 0 991
MISSILE: LONGBOW
HELLFIRE XM2......
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 133 3,782,558 0 0 133 3,782,558
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 LOWER TIER AIR AND 0 111,395 0 111,395
MISSILE DEFENSE
(AMD).............
2 MSE MISSILE........ 179 871,276 179 871,276
3 INDIRECT FIRE 0 145,636 0 500,000 0 645,636
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC 2-I
Acceleration of [0] [500,000]
cruise missile
defense........
4 INDIRECT FIRE 0 31,286 0 31,286
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC 2-I
AP................
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
6 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 1,046 276,462 1,046 276,462
MSLS (JAGM).......
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 709 303,665 709 303,665
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
9 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,472 105,014 1,472 105,014
SUMMARY...........
10 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 19,949 0 19,949
SUMMARY AP........
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 3,267 359,613 3,267 359,613
(GMLRS)...........
12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 2,214 20,964 2,214 20,964
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
MODIFICATIONS
15 PATRIOT MODS....... 0 313,228 0 313,228
16 ATACMS MODS........ 0 221,656 -82 -80,000 -82 141,656
Requested [-82] [-80,000]
quantity
exceeds maximum
17 GMLRS MOD.......... 0 266 0 266
18 STINGER MODS....... 0 94,756 0 94,756
19 AVENGER MODS....... 0 48,670 0 48,670
20 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 0 3,173 0 3,173
21 MLRS MODS.......... 0 383,216 0 383,216
22 HIMARS 0 10,196 0 10,196
MODIFICATIONS.....
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
23 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 27,737 0 27,737
PARTS.............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
24 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 0 6,417 0 6,417
25 PRODUCTION BASE 0 1,202 0 1,202
SUPPORT...........
TOTAL MISSILE 8,887 3,355,777 -82 420,000 8,805 3,775,777
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
2 ARMORED MULTI 131 479,801 0 -100,000 131 379,801
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)............
Program [0] [-100,000]
decrease.......
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
4 STRYKER (MOD)...... 0 287,490 0 -149,390 0 138,100
Army requested [0] [-149,390]
transfer.......
5 STRYKER UPGRADE.... 3 21,900 0 149,390 3 171,290
Army requested [0] [149,390]
transfer.......
6 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 625,424 0 -324,000 0 301,424
(MOD).............
Program [0] [-324,000]
decrease.......
7 M109 FOV 0 26,482 0 26,482
MODIFICATIONS.....
8 PALADIN INTEGRATED 30 351,802 0 110,000 30 461,802
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
Program [0] [110,000]
increase.......
9 IMPROVED RECOVERY 26 110,500 26 110,500
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
10 ASSAULT BRIDGE 0 2,120 0 2,120
(MOD).............
11 ASSAULT BREACHER 12 62,407 12 62,407
VEHICLE...........
12 M88 FOV MODS....... 0 4,517 0 4,517
13 JOINT ASSAULT 30 142,255 30 142,255
BRIDGE............
14 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 927,600 0 927,600
(MOD).............
15 ABRAMS UPGRADE 95 1,075,999 95 1,075,999
PROGRAM...........
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 1,955 0 1,955
GUN (7.62MM)......
19 MULTI-ROLE ANTI- 0 23,345 0 23,345
ARMOR ANTI-
PERSONNEL WEAPON S
20 GUN AUTOMATIC 30MM 0 7,434 0 7,434
M230..............
21 MACHINE GUN, CAL 0 22,330 0 22,330
.50 M2 ROLL.......
22 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 12,470 0 12,470
23 XM320 GRENADE 0 697 0 697
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
24 COMPACT SEMI- 0 46,236 0 46,236
AUTOMATIC SNIPER
SYSTEM............
25 CARBINE............ 0 69,306 0 69,306
26 SMALL ARMS--FIRE 0 7,929 0 7,929
CONTROL...........
27 COMMON REMOTELY 0 35,968 0 35,968
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
28 HANDGUN............ 0 48,251 0 48,251
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
29 MK-19 GRENADE 0 1,684 0 1,684
MACHINE GUN MODS..
30 M777 MODS.......... 0 3,086 0 3,086
31 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 0 31,575 0 31,575
32 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 21,600 0 21,600
GUN MODS..........
33 M249 SAW MACHINE 0 3,924 0 3,924
GUN MODS..........
34 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 6,940 0 6,940
GUN MODS..........
35 SNIPER RIFLES 0 2,747 0 2,747
MODIFICATIONS.....
36 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 0 5,704 0 5,704
37 MORTAR MODIFICATION 0 3,965 0 3,965
38 MODIFICATIONS LESS 0 5,577 0 5,577
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
39 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 3,174 0 3,174
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
40 PRODUCTION BASE 0 3,284 0 3,284
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
41 SMALL ARMS 0 1,640 0 1,640
EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
ENH PROG).........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 327 4,489,118 0 -314,000 327 4,175,118
OF W&TCV, ARMY....

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 41,848 0 -6,700 0 35,148
TYPES.............
FY2018 Omnibus [0] [-6,700]
forward finance
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 86,199 0 86,199
TYPES.............
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 20,158 0 20,158
TYPES.............
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 65,573 0 65,573
TYPES.............
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 8,198 0 8,198
TYPES.............
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 77,995 0 77,995
TYPES.............
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 69,781 0 69,781
TYPES.............
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 45,280 0 45,280
TYPES.............
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 46,853 0 46,853
TYPES.............
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 83,003 0 83,003
TYPES.............
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 168,101 0 168,101
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 0 39,341 0 39,341
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
14 ARTILLERY 0 211,442 0 211,442
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 1,189 100,906 1,189 100,906
RANGE M982........
16 ARTILLERY 0 236,677 0 -100,000 0 136,677
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
Ammunition Cuts [0] [-100,000]
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING 0 15,905 0 15,905
CHARGES, ALL TYPES
ROCKETS
18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 4,503 0 4,503
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 211,211 0 211,211
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES. 0 10,428 0 10,428
21 DEMOLITION 0 44,656 0 44,656
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 19,896 0 19,896
23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 10,121 0 10,121
24 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 11,464 0 11,464
TYPES.............
MISCELLANEOUS
25 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 5,224 0 5,224
ALL TYPES.........
26 NON-LETHAL 0 4,310 0 4,310
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES.............
27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,193 0 11,193
MILLION (AMMO)....
28 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 0 10,500 0 10,500
EQUIPMENT.........
29 FIRST DESTINATION 0 18,456 0 18,456
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
30 CLOSEOUT 0 100 0 100
LIABILITIES.......
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
32 INDUSTRIAL 0 394,133 0 394,133
FACILITIES........
33 CONVENTIONAL 0 157,535 0 157,535
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
34 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 0 3,771 0 3,771
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 1,189 2,234,761 0 -106,700 1,189 2,128,061
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 0 16,512 0 16,512
DOLLY SETS........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 0 16,951 0 16,951
FLATBED:..........
3 AMBULANCE, 4 0 50,123 0 50,123
LITTER, 5/4 TON,
4X4...............
4 GROUND MOBILITY 0 46,988 0 46,988
VEHICLES (GMV)....
6 JOINT LIGHT 0 1,319,436 0 -250,000 0 1,069,436
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
Program [0] [-250,000]
reduction......
7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T 0 6,480 0 6,480
(CCE).............
8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 0 132,882 0 132,882
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
9 FIRETRUCKS & 0 14,842 0 14,842
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 0 138,105 0 138,105
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 31,892 0 31,892
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
13 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 38,128 0 38,128
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
14 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 78,507 0 78,507
SVC EQUIP.........
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
16 HEAVY ARMORED 0 790 0 790
VEHICLE...........
17 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 1,390 0 1,390
VEHICLES..........
18 NONTACTICAL 0 15,415 0 15,415
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
20 SIGNAL 0 150,777 0 150,777
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
21 TACTICAL NETWORK 0 469,117 0 469,117
TECHNOLOGY MOD IN
SVC...............
22 SITUATION 0 62,727 0 62,727
INFORMATION
TRANSPORT.........
23 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 0 13,895 0 13,895
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY........
24 JCSE EQUIPMENT 0 4,866 0 4,866
(USREDCOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
27 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 108,133 0 108,133
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
28 TRANSPORTABLE 0 56,737 0 56,737
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
29 SHF TERM........... 0 13,100 0 13,100
30 SMART-T (SPACE).... 0 9,160 0 9,160
31 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 0 25,647 0 25,647
GBS...............
32 ENROUTE MISSION 0 37,401 0 37,401
COMMAND (EMC).....
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
36 COE TACTICAL SERVER 0 20,500 0 20,500
INFRASTRUCTURE
(TSI).............
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
38 HANDHELD MANPACK 0 351,565 0 351,565
SMALL FORM FIT
(HMS).............
40 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 0 4,641 0 4,641
MIDS LVT(2).......
41 TRACTOR DESK....... 0 2,187 0 2,187
42 TRACTOR RIDE....... 0 9,411 0 9,411
44 SPIDER FAMILY OF 0 17,515 0 17,515
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR....
45 TACTICAL 0 819 0 819
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
46 UNIFIED COMMAND 0 17,807 0 17,807
SUITE.............
47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS 0 191,835 0 191,835
EQUIPMENT.........
48 FAMILY OF MED COMM 0 25,177 0 25,177
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
50 CI AUTOMATION 0 9,740 0 9,740
ARCHITECTURE (MIP)
51 DEFENSE MILITARY 0 2,667 0 2,667
DECEPTION
INITIATIVE........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
53 FAMILY OF 0 8,319 0 8,319
BIOMETRICS........
54 INFORMATION SYSTEM 0 2,000 0 2,000
SECURITY PROGRAM-
ISSP..............
55 COMMUNICATIONS 0 88,337 0 88,337
SECURITY (COMSEC).
56 DEFENSIVE CYBER 0 51,343 0 51,343
OPERATIONS........
57 INSIDER THREAT 0 330 0 330
PROGRAM--UNIT
ACTIVITY MONITO...
58 PERSISTENT CYBER 0 3,000 0 3,000
TRAINING
ENVIRONMENT.......
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
59 BASE SUPPORT 0 34,434 0 34,434
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 95,558 0 95,558
61 EMERGENCY 0 4,736 0 4,736
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
62 HOME STATION 0 24,479 0 24,479
MISSION COMMAND
CENTERS (HSMCC)...
63 INSTALLATION INFO 0 216,433 0 216,433
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
66 JTT/CIBS-M (MIP)... 0 10,268 0 10,268
68 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 261,863 0 261,863
69 JOINT TACTICAL 0 5,434 0 5,434
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS) (MIP).....
70 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 20,623 0 20,623
71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 45,998 0 1,800 0 47,798
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
SOUTHCOM SIGINT [0] [1,800]
Suite COMSAT RF
72 CI HUMINT AUTO 0 296 0 296
REPRTING &
COLL(CHARCS)(MIP).
76 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 410 0 410
$5.0M (MIP).......
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
77 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 0 9,165 0 9,165
MORTAR RADAR......
78 EW PLANNING & 0 5,875 0 5,875
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(EWPMT)...........
79 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) 0 8,497 0 8,497
(MIP).............
83 CI MODERNIZATION 0 486 0 486
(MIP).............
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
84 SENTINEL MODS...... 0 79,629 0 79,629
85 NIGHT VISION 0 153,180 0 153,180
DEVICES...........
87 SMALL TACTICAL 0 22,882 0 22,882
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
88 RADIATION 0 17,393 0 17,393
MONITORING SYSTEMS
90 INDIRECT FIRE 0 46,740 0 46,740
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
91 FAMILY OF WEAPON 0 140,737 0 140,737
SIGHTS (FWS)......
93 PROFILER........... 0 171 0 171
94 JOINT BATTLE 0 405,239 0 405,239
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
95 JOINT EFFECTS 0 66,574 0 66,574
TARGETING SYSTEM
(JETS)............
96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 20,783 0 20,783
(LLDR)............
97 COMPUTER 0 8,553 0 8,553
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 21,489 0 21,489
SYSTEM............
99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 0 162,121 0 162,121
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
100 ARMY COMMAND POST 0 2,855 0 2,855
INTEGRATED
INFRASTRUCTURE (..
101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 19,153 0 19,153
FAMILY............
102 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 33,837 0 33,837
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
103 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 0 5,136 0 5,136
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
104 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 0 18,329 0 18,329
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
105 MANEUVER CONTROL 0 38,015 0 38,015
SYSTEM (MCS)......
106 GLOBAL COMBAT 0 15,164 0 15,164
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
107 INTEGRATED 0 29,239 0 29,239
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
109 RECONNAISSANCE AND 0 6,823 0 6,823
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
110 MOD OF IN-SVC 0 1,177 0 1,177
EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
111 ARMY TRAINING 0 12,265 0 12,265
MODERNIZATION.....
112 AUTOMATED DATA 0 201,875 0 -15,000 0 186,875
PROCESSING EQUIP..
Consolidating [0] [-15,000]
more IT
purchases......
113 GENERAL FUND 0 10,976 0 10,976
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
114 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 0 66,330 0 66,330
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
115 CONTRACT WRITING 0 5,927 0 5,927
SYSTEM............
116 RESERVE COMPONENT 0 27,896 0 27,896
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
VISUAL SYS (A/V)
117 TACTICAL DIGITAL 0 4,392 0 4,392
MEDIA.............
118 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 1,970 0 1,970
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
119 PRODUCTION BASE 0 506 0 506
SUPPORT (C-E).....
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 4,501 0 4,501
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS. 0 2,314 0 2,314
122 FAMILY OF NON- 0 7,478 0 7,478
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
124 CBRN DEFENSE....... 0 173,954 0 173,954
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
125 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 0 98,229 0 98,229
126 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 0 64,438 0 64,438
FLOAT-RIBBON......
127 COMMON BRIDGE 0 79,916 0 79,916
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
128 HANDHELD STANDOFF 0 8,471 0 8,471
MINEFIELD
DETECTION SYS-HST.
129 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 29,883 0 29,883
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
130 AREA MINE DETECTION 0 11,594 0 11,594
SYSTEM (AMDS).....
131 HUSKY MOUNTED 0 40,834 0 40,834
DETECTION SYSTEM
(HMDS)............
132 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 4,029 0 4,029
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
133 EOD ROBOTICS 0 14,208 0 14,208
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
134 ROBOTICS AND 0 31,456 0 31,456
APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..
136 REMOTE DEMOLITION 0 1,748 0 1,748
SYSTEMS...........
137 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 0 7,829 0 7,829
EQUIPMENT.........
138 FAMILY OF BOATS AND 0 5,806 0 5,806
MOTORS............
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
139 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 9,852 0 9,852
140 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 0 1,103 0 1,103
141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 5,875 0 5,875
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
142 GROUND SOLDIER 0 92,487 0 92,487
SYSTEM............
143 MOBILE SOLDIER 0 30,774 0 30,774
POWER.............
145 FIELD FEEDING 0 17,521 0 17,521
EQUIPMENT.........
146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 44,855 0 44,855
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
147 FAMILY OF ENGR 0 17,173 0 17,173
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
148 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 2,000 0 2,000
(ENG SPT).........
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
149 QUALITY 0 1,770 0 1,770
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.........
150 DISTRIBUTION 0 39,730 0 39,730
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
151 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 57,752 0 57,752
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 0 37,722 0 37,722
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
153 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 4,985 0 4,985
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
155 SCRAPERS, 0 7,961 0 7,961
EARTHMOVING.......
156 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 0 1,355 0 1,355
158 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 0 13,031 0 13,031
159 HIGH MOBILITY 0 46,048 0 46,048
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
160 ENHANCED RAPID 0 980 0 980
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
161 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 0 37,017 0 37,017
162 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 6,103 0 6,103
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)............
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
163 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 0 27,711 0 27,711
164 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 8,385 0 8,385
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
165 GENERATORS AND 0 133,772 0 133,772
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
166 TACTICAL ELECTRIC 0 8,333 0 8,333
POWER
RECAPITALIZATION..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
167 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 0 12,901 0 12,901
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
168 COMBAT TRAINING 0 123,228 0 123,228
CENTERS SUPPORT...
169 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 228,598 0 228,598
NONSYSTEM.........
170 CLOSE COMBAT 0 33,080 0 33,080
TACTICAL TRAINER..
171 AVIATION COMBINED 0 32,700 0 32,700
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
172 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 0 25,161 0 25,161
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
173 CALIBRATION SETS 0 4,270 0 4,270
EQUIPMENT.........
174 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 76,295 0 76,295
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
175 TEST EQUIPMENT 0 9,806 0 9,806
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
176 M25 STABILIZED 0 4,368 0 4,368
BINOCULAR.........
177 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 9,879 0 9,879
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
178 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 54,043 0 54,043
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
179 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 6,633 0 6,633
EQUIPMENT.........
180 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 49,797 0 49,797
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
181 PRODUCTION BASE 0 2,301 0 2,301
SUPPORT (OTH).....
182 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 0 11,608 0 11,608
FOR USER TESTING..
183 TRACTOR YARD....... 0 4,956 0 4,956
OPA2
184 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 0 9,817 0 9,817
TOTAL OTHER 0 7,999,529 0 -263,200 0 7,736,329
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 24 1,937,553 24 1,937,553
HORNET............
2 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 0 58,799 0 58,799
HORNET AP.........
3 JOINT STRIKE 9 1,144,958 -1 -121,000 8 1,023,958
FIGHTER CV........
Program [-1] [-121,000]
Realignment....
4 JOINT STRIKE 0 140,010 0 140,010
FIGHTER CV AP.....
5 JSF STOVL.......... 20 2,312,847 20 2,312,847
6 JSF STOVL AP....... 0 228,492 0 228,492
7 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 8 1,113,804 8 1,113,804
8 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 0 161,079 0 161,079
AP................
9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 7 806,337 7 806,337
10 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT) 0 36,955 0 36,955
AP................
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 25 820,755 25 820,755
AH-1Z)............
14 P-8A POSEIDON...... 10 1,803,753 10 1,803,753
15 P-8A POSEIDON AP... 0 180,000 0 180,000
16 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 4 742,693 1 175,000 5 917,693
UPL--1 [1] [175,000]
additional
Aircraft.......
17 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE AP 0 240,734 0 240,734
71 O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000
AIRCRAFT..........
Initial [0] [100,000]
procurement for
light attack
aircraft.......
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
18 C-40A.............. 2 206,000 -2 -206,000 0 0
Funded in FY18 [-2] [-206,000]
Omnibus........
OTHER AIRCRAFT
20 KC-130J............ 2 160,433 2 160,433
21 KC-130J AP......... 0 110,013 0 110,013
22 MQ-4 TRITON........ 3 568,743 3 568,743
23 MQ-4 TRITON AP..... 0 58,522 0 58,522
24 MQ-8 UAV........... 0 54,761 0 54,761
25 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 14,866 0 14,866
26 VH-92A EXECUTIVE 6 649,015 6 649,015
HELO..............
72 UAV................ 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000
Procurement of [0] [100,000]
UAV............
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
27 AEA SYSTEMS........ 0 25,277 0 25,277
28 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 58,577 0 58,577
29 ADVERSARY.......... 0 14,606 0 14,606
30 F-18 SERIES........ 0 1,213,482 0 13,900 0 1,227,382
UPL--EA-18G [0] [13,900]
Advanced Modes /
Cognitive EW..
31 H-53 SERIES........ 0 70,997 0 70,997
32 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 130,661 0 130,661
33 H-1 SERIES......... 0 87,143 0 87,143
34 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 3,633 0 3,633
35 P-3 SERIES......... 0 803 0 803
36 E-2 SERIES......... 0 88,780 0 88,780
37 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 0 11,660 0 11,660
38 C-2A............... 0 11,327 0 11,327
39 C-130 SERIES....... 0 79,075 0 79,075
40 FEWSG.............. 0 597 0 597
41 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 0 8,932 0 8,932
SERIES............
42 E-6 SERIES......... 0 181,821 0 181,821
43 EXECUTIVE 0 23,566 0 23,566
HELICOPTERS SERIES
44 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 7,620 0 7,620
AIRCRAFT..........
45 T-45 SERIES........ 0 195,475 0 195,475
46 POWER PLANT CHANGES 0 21,521 0 21,521
47 JPATS SERIES....... 0 27,644 0 27,644
48 AVIATION LIFE 0 15,864 0 15,864
SUPPORT MODS......
49 COMMON ECM 0 166,306 43 25,000 43 191,306
EQUIPMENT.........
UPL--F/A-18 E/F [43] [25,000]
Adaptative
Radar
Countermeasures
50 COMMON AVIONICS 0 117,551 0 117,551
CHANGES...........
51 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 1,994 0 1,994
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
52 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 40,696 0 40,696
53 P-8 SERIES......... 0 71,251 0 71,251
54 MAGTF EW FOR 0 11,590 0 11,590
AVIATION..........
55 MQ-8 SERIES........ 0 37,907 0 37,907
57 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 214,820 0 214,820
ACFT) OSPREY......
58 NEXT GENERATION 0 952 0 952
JAMMER (NGJ)......
59 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 0 36,618 0 33,500 0 70,118
F-35B [0] [33,500]
Modifications
Increase.......
60 F-35 CV SERIES..... 0 21,236 0 5,000 0 26,236
F-35C [0] [5,000]
Modifications
Increase.......
61 QRC................ 0 101,499 0 101,499
62 MQ-4 SERIES........ 0 48,278 0 48,278
63 RQ-21 SERIES....... 0 6,904 0 6,904
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
64 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 1,792,920 0 50,000 0 1,842,920
PARTS.............
F-35B and F-35C [0] [50,000]
spares quantity
increase.......
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
65 COMMON GROUND 0 421,606 0 421,606
EQUIPMENT.........
66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 24,496 0 24,496
FACILITIES........
67 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 42,108 0 42,108
68 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,444 0 1,444
CHARGES...........
69 SPECIAL SUPPORT 0 49,489 0 49,489
EQUIPMENT.........
70 FIRST DESTINATION 0 1,951 0 1,951
TRANSPORTATION....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 120 19,041,799 41 175,400 161 19,217,199
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 0 1,078,750 0 1,078,750
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 6,998 0 6,998
FACILITIES........
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 0 98,570 0 98,570
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 140 211,058 140 211,058
5 SIDEWINDER......... 191 77,927 58 45,000 249 122,927
Navy UPL: [58] [45,000]
Increase to
maximum
capacity.......
6 JSOW............... 0 1,330 0 1,330
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 125 490,210 125 490,210
8 STANDARD MISSILE AP 0 125,683 0 125,683
9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 750 91,272 750 91,272
II................
10 RAM................ 120 96,221 120 96,221
11 JOINT AIR GROUND 75 24,109 75 24,109
MISSILE (JAGM)....
14 STAND OFF PRECISION 31 11,378 31 11,378
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
15 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 137,137 0 137,137
16 OTHER MISSILE 0 3,318 0 3,318
SUPPORT...........
17 LRASM.............. 25 81,190 10 30,000 35 111,190
Navy UPL: [10] [30,000]
Increase to
maximum
capacity.......
18 LCS OTH MISSILE.... 8 18,156 8 18,156
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
19 ESSM............... 45 98,384 45 98,384
20 HARPOON MODS....... 0 14,840 48 12,000 48 26,840
Navy UPL: [48] [12,000]
Increase to max
capacity.......
21 HARM MODS.......... 0 187,985 -200 -113,900 -200 74,085
Reduce [-200] [-113,900]
procurement due
to test results
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
23 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 2,006 0 2,006
FACILITIES........
24 FLEET SATELLITE 0 66,779 0 66,779
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
25 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 62,008 0 62,008
EQUIPMENT.........
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
26 SSTD............... 0 6,353 0 6,353
27 MK-48 TORPEDO...... 45 92,616 5 11,000 50 103,616
Navy UPL: [5] [11,000]
Increase to
maximum
capacity.......
28 ASW TARGETS........ 0 12,324 0 12,324
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
29 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 0 105,946 0 105,946
30 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 0 40,005 0 40,005
MODS..............
31 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 0 9,758 0 9,758
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
32 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 79,371 0 79,371
EQUIPMENT.........
33 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 0 3,872 0 3,872
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
34 FIRST DESTINATION 0 3,726 0 3,726
TRANSPORTATION....
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
35 SMALL ARMS AND 0 15,067 0 15,067
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
36 CIWS MODS.......... 0 63,318 0 63,318
37 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 0 40,823 0 40,823
38 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 74,618 0 74,618
39 LCS MODULE WEAPONS. 90 11,350 -50 -6,000 40 5,350
Early to need.. [-50] [-6,000]
41 AIRBORNE MINE 0 22,249 0 22,249
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
43 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 135,688 0 135,688
PARTS.............
TOTAL WEAPONS 1,645 3,702,393 -129 -21,900 1,516 3,680,493
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 79,871 0 79,871
BOMBS.............
2 JDAM............... 3,688 87,900 3,688 87,900
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 151,431 0 151,431
ALL TYPES.........
4 MACHINE GUN 0 11,344 0 11,344
AMMUNITION........
5 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 49,471 0 49,471
6 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 56,227 0 56,227
ACTUATED DEVICES..
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 66,382 0 66,382
COUNTERMEASURES...
8 JATOS.............. 0 2,907 0 2,907
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 72,657 0 72,657
AMMUNITION........
10 INTERMEDIATE 0 33,613 -1,000 -13,000 -1,000 20,613
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
Alamo LRIP [-1,000] [-13,000]
ahead of
testing........
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 42,142 0 42,142
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 49,888 0 49,888
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 10,931 0 10,931
DEMOLITION........
15 AMMUNITION LESS 0 1,106 0 1,106
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
19 MORTARS............ 0 28,266 0 28,266
21 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 63,664 0 63,664
MUNITIONS.........
22 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 59,295 0 59,295
AMMUNITION........
26 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 31,577 0 31,577
MUNITIONS.........
28 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 0 15,001 0 15,001
29 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS 0 86,297 0 86,297
30 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 6,239 0 6,239
MILLION...........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 3,688 1,006,209 -1,000 -13,000 2,688 993,209
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC

SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
FLEET BALLISTIC
MISSILE SHIPS
1 OHIO REPLACEMENT 0 3,005,330 0 3,005,330
SUBMARINE AP......
OTHER WARSHIPS
2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 0 1,598,181 0 1,598,181
PROGRAM...........
4 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 4,373,382 2 4,373,382
SUBMARINE.........
5 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 2,796,401 0 250,000 0 3,046,401
SUBMARINE AP......
FY19-23 MYP EOQ [0] [250,000]
or SIB
expansion......
7 CVN REFUELING 0 449,597 0 449,597
OVERHAULS AP......
8 DDG 1000........... 0 270,965 0 -270,965 0 0
Cost growth [0] [-270,965]
transfer to
Line 28........
9 DDG-51............. 3 5,253,327 0 -27,500 3 5,225,827
Multiyear [0] [-27,500]
procurement
contract
savings........
10 DDG-51 AP.......... 0 391,928 0 250,000 0 641,928
Enable greater [0] [250,000]
long lead
material
procurement....
11 LITTORAL COMBAT 1 646,244 0 -70,000 1 576,244
SHIP..............
Align Plans and [0] [-70,000]
Other costs
with end of
production.....
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
12 LPD -17............ 0 0 0 650,000 0 650,000
AP for FY2020 [0] [650,000]
LPD Flight II
and/or MYP EOQ.
13 EXPEDITIONARY SEA 1 650,000 1 650,000
BASE (ESB)........
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
16 TAO FLEET OILER.... 2 977,104 2 977,104
17 TAO FLEET OILER AP. 0 75,046 0 75,046
18 TOWING, SALVAGE, 1 80,517 1 80,517
AND RESCUE SHIP
(ATS).............
20 LCU 1700........... 2 41,520 2 41,520
21 OUTFITTING......... 0 634,038 0 -72,000 0 562,038
Unjustified [0] [-72,000]
cost growth....
22 SHIP TO SHORE 5 325,375 5 325,375
CONNECTOR.........
23 SERVICE CRAFT...... 0 72,062 0 25,000 0 97,062
Accelerate [0] [25,000]
detail design
and
construction of
YP-703 Flight
II.............
24 LCAC SLEP.......... 1 23,321 1 23,321
25 USCG ICEBREAKERS... 0 0 0 0
28 COMPLETION OF PY 0 207,099 0 270,965 0 478,064
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
Cost growth [0] [270,965]
transfer from
Line 8.........
29 CABLE SHIP......... 0 0 1 250,000 1 250,000
Program [1] [250,000]
increase.......
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING 18 21,871,437 1 1,255,500 19 23,126,937
AND CONVERSION,
NAVY..............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 SURFACE POWER 0 19,700 0 19,700
EQUIPMENT.........
GENERATORS
3 SURFACE COMBATANT 0 23,495 0 23,495
HM&E..............
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
4 OTHER NAVIGATION 0 63,330 0 10,000 0 73,330
EQUIPMENT.........
Accelerate [0] [10,000]
ECDIS-N 9.3,
9.4, 9.5
implementation.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
5 SUB PERISCOPE, 0 178,421 0 178,421
IMAGING AND SUPT
EQUIP PROG........
6 DDG MOD............ 0 487,999 0 487,999
7 FIREFIGHTING 0 28,143 0 28,143
EQUIPMENT.........
8 COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 2,248 0 2,248
SWITCHBOARD.......
9 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 0 37,694 0 37,694
10 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 20,883 0 20,883
EQUIPMENT.........
11 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 37,155 0 37,155
EQUIPMENT.........
12 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 66,328 0 66,328
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
13 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 0 47,241 0 47,241
EQUIPMENT.........
14 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 0 27,987 0 27,987
15 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 0 65,033 0 65,033
EQUIPMENT.........
16 DDG 1000 CLASS 0 89,700 0 -38,400 0 51,300
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
Procurement [0] [-38,400]
early to need..
17 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 22,254 0 22,254
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
18 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 0 3,629 0 3,629
19 CG MODERNIZATION... 0 276,446 0 276,446
20 LCAC............... 0 3,709 0 3,709
21 UNDERWATER EOD 0 78,807 0 78,807
PROGRAMS..........
22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 126,865 0 -25,000 0 101,865
MILLION...........
Insufficient [0] [-25,000]
justification
for CVN-78 in-
service
requirements...
23 CHEMICAL WARFARE 0 2,966 0 2,966
DETECTORS.........
24 SUBMARINE LIFE 0 11,968 0 11,968
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
25 REACTOR POWER UNITS 0 346,325 0 346,325
26 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 0 497,063 0 497,063
OCEAN ENGINEERING
27 DIVING AND SALVAGE 0 10,706 0 10,706
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
28 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 49,771 0 49,771
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
29 OPERATING FORCES 0 225,181 0 225,181
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
31 LCS COMMON MISSION 0 46,732 0 46,732
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
32 LCS MCM MISSION 0 124,147 0 27,916 0 152,063
MODULES...........
Transfer Cobra [0] [8,616]
trainer from
Line 53........
Transfer [0] [19,300]
Knifefish and
UISS trainers
from Line 52...
33 LCS ASW MISSION 0 57,294 0 -18,000 0 39,294
MODULES...........
Excess [0] [-18,000]
procurement
ahead of
satisfactory
testing........
34 LCS SUW MISSION 0 26,006 0 -11,500 0 14,506
MODULES...........
Excess [0] [-11,500]
procurement
ahead of
satisfactory
testing........
35 LCS IN-SERVICE 0 70,526 0 70,526
MODERNIZATION.....
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
36 LSD MIDLIFE & 0 4,784 0 4,784
MODERNIZATION.....
SHIP SONARS
37 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 0 20,309 0 20,309
38 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 0 115,459 0 115,459
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
39 SSN ACOUSTIC 0 318,189 0 318,189
EQUIPMENT.........
40 UNDERSEA WARFARE 0 10,134 0 10,134
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
41 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 0 23,815 0 23,815
WARFARE SYSTEM....
42 SSTD............... 0 11,277 0 -5,000 0 6,277
AN/SLQ-32E [0] [-5,000]
contract delay.
43 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 237,780 0 237,780
SYSTEM............
44 SURTASS............ 0 57,872 0 57,872
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
45 AN/SLQ-32.......... 0 420,344 0 420,344
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
46 SHIPBOARD IW 0 220,883 0 220,883
EXPLOIT...........
47 AUTOMATED 0 4,028 0 4,028
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
48 COOPERATIVE 0 44,173 0 -6,000 0 38,173
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
Common Array [0] [-6,000]
Block antenna
program delay..
49 NAVAL TACTICAL 0 10,991 0 10,991
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
50 ATDLS.............. 0 34,526 0 34,526
51 NAVY COMMAND AND 0 3,769 0 3,769
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
52 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 0 35,709 0 -19,300 0 16,409
REPLACEMENT.......
Transfer [0] [-19,300]
Knifefish and
UISS trainers
to Line 32.....
53 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 0 8,616 0 -8,616 0 0
Transfer Cobra [0] [-8,616]
trainer to Line
32.............
54 NAVSTAR GPS 0 10,703 0 10,703
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
55 AMERICAN FORCES 0 2,626 0 2,626
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
56 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 9,467 0 9,467
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
57 ASHORE ATC 0 70,849 0 70,849
EQUIPMENT.........
58 AFLOAT ATC 0 47,890 0 47,890
EQUIPMENT.........
59 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 26,163 0 26,163
60 JOINT PRECISION 0 38,094 0 38,094
APPROACH AND
LANDING SYSTEM (..
61 NAVAL MISSION 0 11,966 0 11,966
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
62 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 42,010 0 42,010
SYSTEMS...........
63 DCGS-N............. 0 12,896 0 12,896
64 CANES.............. 0 423,027 0 423,027
65 RADIAC............. 0 8,175 0 8,175
66 CANES-INTELL....... 0 54,465 0 54,465
67 GPETE.............. 0 5,985 0 5,985
68 MASF............... 0 5,413 0 5,413
69 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 0 6,251 0 6,251
TEST FACILITY.....
70 EMI CONTROL 0 4,183 0 4,183
INSTRUMENTATION...
71 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 148,350 0 -5,400 0 142,950
MILLION...........
NGSSR [0] [-5,400]
installation
funding early
to need........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
72 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL 0 45,450 0 45,450
COMMUNICATIONS....
73 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 0 105,087 0 105,087
AUTOMATION........
74 COMMUNICATIONS 0 41,123 0 41,123
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
75 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 0 30,897 0 30,897
SUPPORT...........
76 SUBMARINE 0 78,580 0 78,580
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
77 SATELLITE 0 41,205 0 41,205
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
78 NAVY MULTIBAND 0 113,885 0 113,885
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
79 JOINT 0 4,292 0 4,292
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
80 INFO SYSTEMS 0 153,526 0 153,526
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
81 MIO INTEL 0 951 0 951
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
82 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 14,209 0 2,800 0 17,009
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
SOUTHCOM CCO [0] [2,800]
Sensor (2
suites)........
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
86 COAST GUARD 0 40,713 0 40,713
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
88 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 177,891 0 36,000 0 213,891
TYPES.............
Navy UPL....... [0] [36,000]
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
89 WEAPONS RANGE 0 93,864 0 93,864
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
90 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 111,724 0 111,724
EQUIPMENT.........
91 ADVANCED ARRESTING 0 11,054 0 11,054
GEAR (AAG)........
92 METEOROLOGICAL 0 21,072 0 21,072
EQUIPMENT.........
93 DCRS/DPL........... 0 656 0 656
94 AIRBORNE MINE 0 11,299 0 11,299
COUNTERMEASURES...
95 LAMPS EQUIPMENT.... 0 594 0 594
96 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 39,374 0 39,374
EQUIPMENT.........
97 UMCS-UNMAN CARRIER 0 35,405 0 35,405
AVIATION(UCA)MISSI
ON CNTRL..........
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
98 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS 0 5,337 0 5,337
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
99 SHIP MISSILE 0 213,090 0 213,090
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
100 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 0 92,890 0 92,890
EQUIPMENT.........
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
101 STRATEGIC MISSILE 0 271,817 0 271,817
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
102 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 0 129,501 0 129,501
SYSTEMS...........
103 ASW SUPPORT 0 19,436 0 19,436
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 14,258 0 14,258
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
105 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,378 0 5,378
MILLION...........
OTHER EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
106 SUBMARINE TRAINING 0 65,543 0 65,543
DEVICE MODS.......
107 SURFACE TRAINING 0 230,425 0 230,425
EQUIPMENT.........
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
108 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 4,867 0 4,867
VEHICLES..........
109 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 2,674 0 2,674
TRUCKS............
110 CONSTRUCTION & 0 20,994 0 20,994
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
111 FIRE FIGHTING 0 17,189 0 17,189
EQUIPMENT.........
112 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 19,916 0 19,916
113 AMPHIBIOUS 0 7,400 0 7,400
EQUIPMENT.........
114 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 2,713 0 2,713
EQUIPMENT.........
115 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 35,540 0 35,540
MILLION...........
116 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,155 0 1,155
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT... 0 18,786 0 18,786
118 FIRST DESTINATION 0 5,375 0 5,375
TRANSPORTATION....
119 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 580,371 0 580,371
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
120 TRAINING SUPPORT 0 3,400 0 3,400
EQUIPMENT.........
121 TRAINING AND 0 24,283 0 24,283
EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
122 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 66,681 0 66,681
EQUIPMENT.........
123 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 3,352 0 3,352
EQUIPMENT.........
125 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 0 1,984 0 1,984
EQUIPMENT.........
126 OPERATING FORCES 0 15,131 0 15,131
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
127 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 0 3,576 0 3,576
128 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 31,902 0 31,902
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
129 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 175,436 0 20,000 0 195,436
EQUIPMENT.........
New Navy port [0] [20,000]
waterborne
security
barriers
increase.......
130 ENTERPRISE 0 25,393 0 25,393
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
OTHER
133 NEXT GENERATION 0 96,269 0 96,269
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 15,681 0 15,681
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
134 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 326,838 0 326,838
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 9,414,355 0 -40,500 0 9,373,855
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP......... 0 156,249 0 -78,100 0 78,149
Unjustified [0] [-78,100]
investment in a
vehicle with
low/limited
combat utility.
2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT 30 167,478 30 167,478
VEHICLE 1.1.......
3 LAV PIP............ 0 43,701 0 43,701
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
5 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 0 47,158 0 47,158
TOWED HOWITZER....
6 ARTILLERY WEAPONS 0 134,246 0 134,246
SYSTEM............
7 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 0 40,687 0 40,687
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
8 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 22,904 0 22,904
GUIDED MISSILES
9 GROUND BASED AIR 0 18,334 0 18,334
DEFENSE...........
10 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE- 5 3,020 5 3,020
JAVELIN...........
11 FAMILY ANTI-ARMOR 0 13,760 0 13,760
WEAPON SYSTEMS
(FOAAWS)..........
12 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE- 0 59,702 0 59,702
TOW...............
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
13 COMMON AVIATION 0 35,467 0 35,467
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
14 REPAIR AND TEST 0 46,081 0 46,081
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
15 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 971 0 971
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
16 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 69,203 0 69,203
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
17 AIR OPERATIONS C2 0 14,269 0 14,269
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
18 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 0 6,694 0 6,694
19 GROUND/AIR TASK 6 224,969 6 224,969
ORIENTED RADAR (G/
ATOR).............
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
21 GCSS-MC............ 0 1,187 0 1,187
22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 60,189 0 60,189
23 INTELLIGENCE 0 73,848 0 73,848
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
25 UNMANNED AIR 0 3,848 0 3,848
SYSTEMS (INTEL)...
26 DCGS-MC............ 0 16,081 0 16,081
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
30 NEXT GENERATION 0 87,120 0 87,120
ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(NGEN)............
31 COMMON COMPUTER 0 68,914 0 68,914
RESOURCES.........
32 COMMAND POST 0 124,838 0 -24,968 0 99,870
SYSTEMS...........
Operational [0] [-24,968]
limitations of
NOTM...........
33 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 279,680 0 279,680
34 COMM SWITCHING & 0 36,649 0 36,649
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
35 COMM & ELEC 0 83,971 0 83,971
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,626 0 3,626
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
36 COMMERCIAL CARGO 0 25,441 0 25,441
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
37 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 11,392 0 11,392
MODIFICATIONS.....
38 JOINT LIGHT 0 607,011 0 607,011
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
39 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 0 2,393 0 2,393
TRAILERS..........
40 TRAILERS........... 0 6,540 0 6,540
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
41 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 496 0 496
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
42 TACTICAL FUEL 0 54 0 54
SYSTEMS...........
43 POWER EQUIPMENT 0 21,062 0 21,062
ASSORTED..........
44 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 0 5,290 0 5,290
EQUIPMENT.........
45 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 47,854 0 47,854
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
46 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 28,306 0 28,306
EQUIPMENT.........
GENERAL PROPERTY
47 FIELD MEDICAL 0 33,513 0 33,513
EQUIPMENT.........
48 TRAINING DEVICES... 0 52,040 0 -10,408 0 41,632
Excess to need. [0] [-10,408]
49 FAMILY OF 0 36,156 0 36,156
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
50 FAMILY OF 0 606 0 606
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE VEH
(ITV).............
OTHER SUPPORT
51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,608 0 11,608
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
53 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 25,804 0 25,804
PARTS.............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 41 2,860,410 0 -113,476 41 2,746,934
MARINE CORPS......

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 48 4,261,021 -1 -67,500 47 4,193,521
Program [-1] [-67,500]
Realignment....
2 F-35 AP............ 0 406,000 0 406,000
18 O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK 0 0 0 350,000 0 350,000
AIRCRAFT..........
Procurement of [0] [350,000]
OA-X aircraft
and long lead
materials......
OTHER COMBAT
AIRCRAFT
3 C-135B............. 2 222,176 2 222,176
TACTICAL AIRLIFT
4 KC-46A TANKER...... 15 2,559,911 -1 -247,900 14 2,312,011
Interim [0] [-102,700]
contractor
support........
Restore program [-1] [-145,200]
accountability.
OTHER AIRLIFT
5 C-130J............. 0 35,858 0 35,858
6 HC-130J............ 1 129,437 1 129,437
8 MC-130J............ 6 770,201 6 770,201
9 MC-130J AP......... 0 218,000 0 218,000
HELICOPTERS
11 COMBAT RESCUE 10 680,201 10 680,201
HELICOPTER........
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
13 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 4 2,719 4 2,719
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
14 TARGET DRONES...... 48 139,053 48 139,053
15 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 1 108,113 1 108,113
17 MQ-9............... 8 221,707 6 120,000 14 341,707
Increase to [6] [120,000]
accelerate
Advanced Battle
Management
System.........
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
19 B-2A............... 0 60,301 0 60,301
20 B-1B............... 0 51,290 0 51,290
21 B-52............... 0 105,519 0 -4,800 0 100,719
Air Force [0] [-14,800]
requested
realignment....
LRASM [0] [10,000]
certification..
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
23 A-10............... 0 98,720 0 65,000 0 163,720
Additional [0] [65,000]
replacement
wings..........
24 C-130J............. 0 10,831 0 10,831
25 F-15............... 0 548,109 0 548,109
26 F-16............... 0 324,323 0 324,323
27 F-22A.............. 0 250,710 0 250,710
29 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 0 247,271 0 50,000 0 297,271
F-35A [0] [50,000]
Modifications
increase.......
30 F-15 EPAW.......... 0 147,685 0 147,685
31 INCREMENT 3.2B..... 0 9,007 0 9,007
33 KC-46A TANKER...... 0 8,547 0 8,547
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
34 C-5................ 0 77,845 0 77,845
36 C-17A.............. 0 102,121 0 102,121
37 C-21............... 0 17,516 0 17,516
38 C-32A.............. 0 4,537 0 4,537
39 C-37A.............. 0 419 0 419
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
41 GLIDER MODS........ 0 137 0 137
42 T-6................ 0 22,550 0 22,550
43 T-1................ 0 21,952 0 21,952
44 T-38............... 0 70,623 0 70,623
OTHER AIRCRAFT
45 U-2 MODS........... 0 48,774 0 48,774
46 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 0 11,104 0 11,104
47 C-12............... 0 4,900 0 4,900
48 VC-25A MOD......... 0 36,938 0 36,938
49 C-40............... 0 251 0 251
50 C-130.............. 0 22,094 0 74,000 0 96,094
T56 Series 3.5 [0] [74,000]
Engine
Enhancement
packages.......
51 C-130J MODS........ 0 132,045 0 132,045
52 C-135.............. 0 113,076 0 113,076
53 OC-135B............ 0 5,913 0 5,913
54 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 49,885 0 49,885
55 COMBAT FLIGHT 0 499 0 499
INSPECTION (CFIN).
56 RC-135............. 0 394,532 0 394,532
57 E-3................ 0 133,906 0 133,906
58 E-4................ 0 67,858 0 67,858
59 E-8................ 0 9,919 0 25,000 0 34,919
Central [0] [25,000]
Computer
upgrade design.
60 AIRBORNE WARNING 0 57,780 0 57,780
AND CNTR SYS
(AWACS) 40/45.....
61 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 14,293 0 14,293
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
62 H-1................ 0 2,940 0 2,940
63 H-60............... 0 55,466 0 55,466
64 RQ-4 MODS.......... 0 23,715 0 23,715
65 HC/MC-130 0 37,754 0 37,754
MODIFICATIONS.....
66 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 62,010 0 62,010
67 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 171,548 0 171,548
69 CV-22 MODS......... 0 60,416 0 60,416
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
70 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 956,408 0 50,000 0 1,006,408
REPAIR PARTS......
F-35A spares... [0] [50,000]
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
71 AIRCRAFT 0 81,241 0 81,241
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
74 B-2A............... 0 1,763 0 1,763
75 B-2B............... 0 35,861 0 35,861
76 B-52............... 0 12,819 0 12,819
77 C-17A.............. 0 10,114 0 10,114
79 F-15............... 0 2,545 0 2,545
81 F-16............... 0 11,718 0 11,718
82 F-22A.............. 0 14,489 0 14,489
83 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 9,928 0 9,928
84 RQ-4 POST 0 40,641 0 40,641
PRODUCTION CHARGES
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
86 INDUSTRIAL 0 17,378 0 17,378
RESPONSIVENESS....
WAR CONSUMABLES
88 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 29,342 0 29,342
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
89 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,502,386 0 1,502,386
CHARGES...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 28,278 0 28,278
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 143 16,206,937 4 413,800 147 16,620,737
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 0 36,786 0 36,786
EQ-BALLISTIC......
TACTICAL
2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 312 430,708 312 430,708
STANDOFF MISSILE..
3 LRASM0............. 12 44,185 3 10,200 15 54,385
Restore [3] [10,200]
reduction......
4 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 256 121,253 256 121,253
5 AMRAAM............. 220 337,886 220 337,886
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 1,338 113,765 1,338 113,765
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 2,917 105,034 2,917 105,034
8 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 510 100,861 0 -8,000 510 92,861
II................
Unit price [0] [-8,000]
adjustment.....
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
9 INDUSTR'L 0 787 0 787
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
10 ICBM FUZE MOD...... 0 15,767 0 15,767
11 ICBM FUZE MOD AP... 0 4,100 0 4,100
12 MM III 0 129,199 0 129,199
MODIFICATIONS.....
13 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 288 0 288
14 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 0 47,632 0 47,632
MISSILE (ALCM)....
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
16 REPLEN SPARES/ 0 97,481 0 97,481
REPAIR PARTS......
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
18 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 188,539 0 188,539
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 895,183 0 895,183
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
TOTAL MISSILE 5,565 2,669,454 3 2,200 5,568 2,671,654
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

SPACE PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
1 ADVANCED EHF....... 0 29,829 0 29,829
2 AF SATELLITE COMM 0 35,400 0 35,400
SYSTEM............
3 COUNTERSPACE 0 1,121 0 1,121
SYSTEMS...........
4 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 27,867 0 27,867
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
5 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 0 61,606 0 61,606
SATELLITES(SPACE).
6 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 3,425 0 3,425
TECH--SPACE.......
7 GPS III SPACE 0 69,386 0 69,386
SEGMENT...........
8 GLOBAL POSTIONING 0 2,181 0 2,181
(SPACE)...........
9 INTEG BROADCAST 0 16,445 0 16,445
SERV..............
10 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 0 31,895 0 31,895
(COMSEC)..........
12 MILSATCOM.......... 0 11,265 0 11,265
13 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 0 709,981 0 709,981
LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
14 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 5 994,555 5 994,555
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
15 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 0 138,397 0 138,397
17 NUDET DETECTION 0 7,705 0 7,705
SYSTEM............
18 ROCKET SYSTEMS 0 47,609 0 47,609
LAUNCH PROGRAM....
19 SPACE FENCE........ 0 51,361 0 51,361
20 SPACE MODS......... 0 148,065 0 148,065
21 SPACELIFT RANGE 0 117,637 0 117,637
SYSTEM SPACE......
SPARES
22 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 21,812 0 21,812
PARTS.............
TOTAL SPACE 5 2,527,542 0 0 5 2,527,542
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 345,911 0 345,911
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 163,840 0 163,840
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 20,876 0 20,876
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 259,308 0 259,308
BOMBS.............
5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE 0 38,111 0 38,111
PENETRATOR (MOP)..
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 7,899 234,198 7,899 234,198
MUNITION..........
7 B61................ 250 109,292 250 109,292
8 B61 AP............. 0 52,731 0 52,731
OTHER ITEMS
9 CAD/PAD............ 0 51,455 0 51,455
10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 6,038 0 6,038
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
11 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 524 0 524
PARTS.............
12 MODIFICATIONS...... 0 1,270 0 1,270
13 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 4,604 0 4,604
$5,000,000........
FLARES
15 FLARES............. 0 125,286 0 125,286
FUZES
16 FUZES.............. 0 109,358 0 109,358
SMALL ARMS
17 SMALL ARMS......... 0 64,502 0 64,502
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 8,149 1,587,304 0 0 8,149 1,587,304
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 6,949 0 6,949
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 36,002 0 36,002
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 0 1,022 0 1,022
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 42,696 0 7,183 0 49,879
VEHICLES..........
Procurement of [0] [7,183]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 JOINT LIGHT 0 30,145 0 30,145
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
6 SECURITY AND 0 1,230 0 2,673 0 3,903
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
Procurement of [0] [2,673]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
7 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 43,003 0 10,690 0 53,693
VEHICLES..........
Procurement of [0] [10,690]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 23,328 0 8,980 0 32,308
RESCUE VEHICLES...
Procurement of [0] [8,980]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
9 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 11,537 0 19,772 0 31,309
VEHICLES..........
Procurement of [0] [19,772]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV 0 37,600 0 2,753 0 40,353
AND CLEANING EQU..
Procurement of [0] [2,753]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
11 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 104,923 0 104,923
SUPPORT VEHICLES..
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 0 114,372 0 114,372
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL 0 8,290 0 8,290
TECH &
ARCHITECTURES.....
14 INTELLIGENCE 0 2,099 0 2,099
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 37,415 0 37,415
EQUIPMENT.........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 57,937 0 57,937
& LANDING SYS.....
18 BATTLE CONTROL 0 3,012 0 3,012
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
19 THEATER AIR CONTROL 0 19,989 0 19,989
SYS IMPROVEMEN....
20 WEATHER OBSERVATION 0 45,020 0 45,020
FORECAST..........
21 STRATEGIC COMMAND 0 32,836 0 32,836
AND CONTROL.......
22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 0 12,454 0 12,454
COMPLEX...........
23 MISSION PLANNING 0 14,263 0 14,263
SYSTEMS...........
25 INTEGRATED STRAT 0 7,769 0 7,769
PLAN & ANALY
NETWORK (ISPAN)...
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
26 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 40,450 0 40,450
TECHNOLOGY........
27 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 0 6,619 0 6,619
CONTROL SYS.......
28 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 10,192 0 10,192
AND CONTROL.......
29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 159,313 0 2,002 0 161,315
SECURITY SYSTEM...
Procurement of [0] [2,002]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
30 COMBAT TRAINING 0 132,675 0 132,675
RANGES............
31 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 0 140,875 0 140,875
EMERGENCY COMM N..
32 WIDE AREA 0 92,104 0 92,104
SURVEILLANCE (WAS)
33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 0 45,152 0 45,152
34 GCSS-AF FOS........ 0 483 0 483
35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 802 0 802
ACCOUNTING & MGT
SYS...............
36 MAINTENANCE REPAIR 0 12,207 0 12,207
& OVERHAUL
INITIATIVE........
37 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 7,644 0 7,644
C2 SYSTEM.........
38 AIR & SPACE 0 40,066 0 40,066
OPERATIONS CENTER
(AOC).............
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
41 BASE INFORMATION 0 22,357 0 22,357
TRANSPT INFRAST
(BITI) WIRED......
42 AFNET.............. 0 102,836 0 102,836
43 JOINT 0 3,145 0 3,145
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
44 USCENTCOM.......... 0 13,194 0 13,194
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
45 TACTICAL C-E 0 161,231 0 161,231
EQUIPMENT.........
47 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 0 12,142 0 12,142
48 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 0 6,505 0 6,505
EQUIPMENT.........
49 BASE COMM 0 169,404 0 169,404
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
50 COMM ELECT MODS.... 0 10,654 0 10,654
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
51 PERSONAL SAFETY AND 0 51,906 0 51,906
RESCUE EQUIPMENT..
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
52 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 0 88,298 0 88,298
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
53 BASE PROCURED 0 17,031 0 17,031
EQUIPMENT.........
54 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 82,635 0 82,635
EQUIPMENT.........
55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 9,549 0 9,549
56 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 24,005 0 24,043 0 48,048
AND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
Procurement of [0] [24,043]
7 DABs for
PACOM..........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
58 DARP RC135......... 0 26,262 0 26,262
59 DCGS-AF............ 0 448,290 0 448,290
61 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 913,813 0 913,813
PROGRAM...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 17,258,069 0 17,258,069
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
63 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 86,365 0 86,365
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 20,890,164 0 78,096 0 20,968,260
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
OSD
43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 35,295 0 35,295
OSD...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
NSA
42 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 5,403 0 5,403
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
WHS
46 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 497 0 497
WHS...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 21,590 0 20,000 0 41,590
SECURITY..........
Sharkseer...... [0] [20,000]
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 33,905 0 33,905
9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 27,886 0 27,886
MILLION...........
10 NET CENTRIC 0 1,017 0 1,017
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (NCES)...
11 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 150,674 0 150,674
SYSTEM NETWORK....
13 WHITE HOUSE 0 94,610 0 94,610
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY............
14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP 0 197,246 0 197,246
ENTERPRISE........
15 JOINT REGIONAL 0 140,338 0 140,338
SECURITY STACKS
(JRSS)............
16 JOINT SERVICE 0 107,182 0 -19,500 0 87,682
PROVIDER..........
General [0] [-19,500]
reduction......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 5,225 0 5,225
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
21 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 1,196 0 1,196
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 2,542 0 2,542
MILLION...........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
TJS
44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 4,360 0 4,360
TJS...............
45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 904 0 904
TJS--CE2T2........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
26 THAAD.............. 82 874,068 82 874,068
27 GROUND BASED 14 409,000 14 409,000
MIDCOURSE.........
28 GROUND BASED 0 115,000 0 115,000
MIDCOURSE AP......
29 AEGIS BMD.......... 43 593,488 43 593,488
30 AEGIS BMD AP....... 0 115,206 0 115,206
31 BMDS AN/TPY-2 0 13,185 0 13,185
RADARS............
32 ISRAELI PROGRAMS... 0 80,000 0 80,000
33 SHORT RANGE 0 50,000 0 50,000
BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE (SRBMD)...
34 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 0 15,000 0 15,000
III...............
35 IRON DOME.......... 0 70,000 0 70,000
36 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE 28 97,057 28 97,057
AND SOFTWARE......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 0 10,630 0 10,630
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
23 VEHICLES........... 0 207 0 207
24 OTHER MAJOR 0 5,592 0 5,592
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
20 AUTOMATION/ 0 1,723 0 1,723
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 3,873 0 3,873
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 13,106 0 13,106
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 589,691 0 589,691
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
AVIATION PROGRAMS
50 ROTARY WING 0 148,351 0 148,351
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.......
51 UNMANNED ISR....... 0 57,708 0 57,708
52 NON-STANDARD 0 18,731 0 18,731
AVIATION..........
53 U-28............... 0 32,301 0 32,301
54 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 0 131,033 0 131,033
55 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 0 32,529 0 32,529
56 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 24,621 0 24,621
AERIAL VEHICLE....
57 PRECISION STRIKE 0 226,965 0 226,965
PACKAGE...........
58 AC/MC-130J......... 0 165,813 0 165,813
59 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 0 80,274 0 80,274
SHIPBUILDING
60 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 0 136,723 0 136,723
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
61 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 357,742 0 357,742
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
62 INTELLIGENCE 0 85,699 0 85,699
SYSTEMS...........
63 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 0 17,863 0 17,863
GROUND/SURFACE
SYSTEMS...........
64 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 0 112,117 0 112,117
65 COMBATANT CRAFT 0 7,313 0 7,313
SYSTEMS...........
66 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 0 14,026 0 14,026
67 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 88,608 0 88,608
68 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 438,590 0 438,590
<$5M..............
69 COMBAT MISSION 0 19,408 0 19,408
REQUIREMENTS......
70 GLOBAL VIDEO 0 6,281 0 6,281
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES........
71 OPERATIONAL 0 18,509 0 18,509
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
73 OPERATIONAL 0 367,433 0 367,433
ENHANCEMENTS......
CBDP
74 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL 0 166,418 0 166,418
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.........
75 CB PROTECTION & 0 144,519 0 144,519
HAZARD MITIGATION.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 167 6,786,271 0 500 167 6,786,771
DEFENSE-WIDE......

JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT 0 100,025 0 100,025
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
TOTAL JOINT URGENT 0 100,025 0 0 0 100,025
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............

TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 30,077 130,526,043 -1,162 1,472,720 28,915 131,998,763
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
3 MQ-1 UAV........... 6 60,000 0 6 60,000
ROTARY
11 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 1 21,246 0 1 21,246
MODEL (MYP).......
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 1 25,000 0 1 25,000
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
17 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 0 11,400 0 0 11,400
19 GRAY EAGLE MODS2... 0 32,000 0 0 32,000
20 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 51,000 0 0 51,000
RECON (MIP).......
32 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 50,868 0 0 50,868
33 UAS MODS........... 0 3,402 0 0 3,402
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
36 CMWS............... 0 84,387 0 0 84,387
37 COMMON INFRARED 0 24,060 0 0 24,060
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)...........
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 9 363,363 0 0 9 363,363
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
2 MSE MISSILE........ 61 260,000 0 61 260,000
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
5 HELLFIRE SYS 2,684 255,040 0 2,684 255,040
SUMMARY...........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 75 31,120 0 75 31,120
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 7,584 624,500 0 7,584 624,500
(GMLRS)...........
13 HIGH MOBILITY 24 171,138 0 24 171,138
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM (HIMARS....
14 LETHAL MINIATURE 1,318 112,973 0 1,318 112,973
AERIAL MISSILE
SYSTEM (LMAMS.....
MODIFICATIONS
16 ATACMS MODS........ 0 225,580 0 0 225,580
21 MLRS MODS.......... 0 122,000 0 0 122,000
TOTAL MISSILE 11,746 1,802,351 0 0 11,746 1,802,351
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 BRADLEY PROGRAM.... 61 205,000 0 61 205,000
2 ARMORED MULTI 66 230,359 0 66 230,359
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)............
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
6 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 50,000 0 0 50,000
(MOD).............
8 PALADIN INTEGRATED 6 67,000 0 6 67,000
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
9 IMPROVED RECOVERY 12 42,354 0 12 42,354
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
14 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 34,000 0 0 34,000
(MOD).............
15 ABRAMS UPGRADE 40 455,000 0 40 455,000
PROGRAM...........
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 126 0 0 126
GUN (7.62MM)......
22 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 11,842 0 0 11,842
25 CARBINE............ 0 1,800 0 0 1,800
27 COMMON REMOTELY 0 3,378 0 0 3,378
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
32 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 4,920 0 0 4,920
GUN MODS..........
34 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 7 0 0 7
GUN MODS..........
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
39 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 1,397 0 0 1,397
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 185 1,107,183 0 0 185 1,107,183
OF W&TCV, ARMY....

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 3,392 0 0 3,392
TYPES.............
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 40 0 0 40
TYPES.............
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 17 0 0 17
TYPES.............
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 189 0 0 189
TYPES.............
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 1,605 0 0 1,605
TYPES.............
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 25,000 0 0 25,000
TYPES.............
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 218 0 0 218
TYPES.............
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 484 0 0 484
TYPES.............
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
14 ARTILLERY 0 79,400 0 0 79,400
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 973 72,985 0 973 72,985
RANGE M982........
16 ARTILLERY 0 63,900 0 0 63,900
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
ROCKETS
18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 22,242 0 0 22,242
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 39,974 0 0 39,974
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
21 DEMOLITION 0 5 0 0 5
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 8 0 0 8
MISCELLANEOUS
27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 66 0 0 66
MILLION (AMMO)....
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 973 309,525 0 0 973 309,525
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
2 SEMITRAILERS, 0 8,000 0 0 8,000
FLATBED:..........
3 AMBULANCE, 4 0 20,770 0 0 20,770
LITTER, 5/4 TON,
4X4...............
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 596 115,400 0 596 115,400
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 6,682 0 0 6,682
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
13 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 50,000 0 0 50,000
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
14 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 186,377 0 0 186,377
SVC EQUIP.........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
28 TRANSPORTABLE 0 7,100 0 0 7,100
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
37 JOINT TACTICAL 0 1,560 0 0 1,560
RADIO SYSTEM......
42 TRACTOR RIDE....... 0 13,190 0 0 13,190
45 TACTICAL 0 9,549 0 0 9,549
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS 0 22,000 0 0 22,000
EQUIPMENT.........
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
50 CI AUTOMATION 0 9,800 0 0 9,800
ARCHITECTURE (MIP)
INFORMATION
SECURITY
55 COMMUNICATIONS 0 3 0 0 3
SECURITY (COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
59 BASE SUPPORT 0 690 0 0 690
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 8,750 0 0 8,750
63 INSTALLATION INFO 0 60,337 0 0 60,337
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
68 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 37,806 0 0 37,806
70 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 6,926 0 0 6,926
71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 2,011 0 0 2,011
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL 0 5,370 0 0 5,370
COLLECTION DEVICES
(MIP).............
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
80 CREW............... 0 42,651 0 0 42,651
81 FAMILY OF 0 20,050 0 0 20,050
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE CAP.
(MIP).............
82 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 12,974 0 0 12,974
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
85 NIGHT VISION 0 463 0 0 463
DEVICES...........
86 LONG RANGE ADVANCED 0 2,861 0 0 2,861
SCOUT SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM............
87 SMALL TACTICAL 0 60 0 0 60
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
88 RADIATION 0 11 0 0 11
MONITORING SYSTEMS
90 INDIRECT FIRE 0 251,062 0 0 251,062
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
91 FAMILY OF WEAPON 0 525 0 0 525
SIGHTS (FWS)......
94 JOINT BATTLE 0 26,146 0 0 26,146
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 4,050 0 0 4,050
(LLDR)............
97 COMPUTER 0 960 0 0 960
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 7,660 0 0 7,660
SYSTEM............
99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 0 165,200 0 0 165,200
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
112 AUTOMATED DATA 0 28,475 0 0 28,475
PROCESSING EQUIP..
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS. 0 27 0 0 27
122 FAMILY OF NON- 0 20,200 0 0 20,200
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
123 BASE DEFENSE 0 39,200 0 0 39,200
SYSTEMS (BDS).....
124 CBRN DEFENSE....... 0 2,317 0 0 2,317
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
129 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 16,000 0 0 16,000
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
130 AREA MINE DETECTION 0 1 0 0 1
SYSTEM (AMDS).....
132 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 4,850 0 0 4,850
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
136 REMOTE DEMOLITION 0 1 0 0 1
SYSTEMS...........
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
139 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 270 0 0 270
141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 4,300 0 0 4,300
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
142 GROUND SOLDIER 0 1,725 0 0 1,725
SYSTEM............
144 FORCE PROVIDER..... 0 55,800 0 0 55,800
145 FIELD FEEDING 0 1,035 0 0 1,035
EQUIPMENT.........
146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 1,980 0 0 1,980
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
151 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 17,527 0 0 17,527
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
153 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 268 0 0 268
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
159 HIGH MOBILITY 0 25,700 0 0 25,700
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
GENERATORS
165 GENERATORS AND 0 569 0 0 569
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
174 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 9,495 0 0 9,495
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
176 M25 STABILIZED 0 33 0 0 33
BINOCULAR.........
177 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 18,000 0 0 18,000
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
178 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 6,000 0 0 6,000
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
179 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 2,080 0 0 2,080
EQUIPMENT.........
180 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 19,200 0 0 19,200
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
TOTAL OTHER 596 1,382,047 0 0 596 1,382,047
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
25 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 35,065 0 0 35,065
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
32 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 4,858 0 0 4,858
34 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 5,380 0 0 5,380
44 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 2,165 0 0 2,165
AIRCRAFT..........
49 COMMON ECM 0 9,820 0 0 9,820
EQUIPMENT.........
51 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 3,206 0 0 3,206
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
61 QRC................ 0 2,410 0 0 2,410
63 RQ-21 SERIES....... 0 17,215 0 0 17,215
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 0 80,119 0 0 0 80,119
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 0 69 82,800 69 82,800
Buy-back [69] [82,800]
Tomahawk.......
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 1 1,183 0 1 1,183
5 SIDEWINDER......... 1 381 0 1 381
12 HELLFIRE........... 23 1,530 0 23 1,530
15 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 6,500 0 0 6,500
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
35 SMALL ARMS AND 0 1,540 0 0 1,540
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
38 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 3,000 0 0 3,000
TOTAL WEAPONS 25 14,134 69 82,800 94 96,934
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 62,530 0 0 62,530
BOMBS.............
2 JDAM............... 3,906 93,019 0 3,906 93,019
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 2,163 0 0 2,163
ALL TYPES.........
4 MACHINE GUN 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
AMMUNITION........
6 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 5,334 0 0 5,334
ACTUATED DEVICES..
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 36,580 0 0 36,580
COUNTERMEASURES...
8 JATOS.............. 0 747 0 0 747
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 2,538 0 0 2,538
AMMUNITION........
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 1,807 0 0 1,807
DEMOLITION........
15 AMMUNITION LESS 0 2,229 0 -2,000 0 229
THAN $5 MILLION...
Excess balances [0] [-2,000]
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
19 MORTARS............ 0 2,018 0 0 2,018
21 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 632 0 0 632
MUNITIONS.........
22 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 779 0 0 779
AMMUNITION........
26 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 164 0 0 164
MUNITIONS.........
29 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS 0 31,001 0 0 31,001
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 3,906 246,541 0 -2,000 3,906 244,541
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
21 UNDERWATER EOD 0 9,200 0 0 9,200
PROGRAMS..........
SMALL BOATS
28 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 19,060 0 0 19,060
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
43 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 56,950 0 0 56,950
SYSTEM............
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
77 SATELLITE 0 3,200 0 0 3,200
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
82 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 2,000 0 0 2,000
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
SONOBUOYS
88 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 21,156 0 0 21,156
TYPES.............
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 33,580 0 0 33,580
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
108 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 170 0 0 170
VEHICLES..........
109 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 400 0 0 400
TRUCKS............
111 FIRE FIGHTING 0 770 0 0 770
EQUIPMENT.........
112 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 7,298 0 0 7,298
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
118 FIRST DESTINATION 0 500 0 0 500
TRANSPORTATION....
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
123 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 6,500 0 0 6,500
EQUIPMENT.........
128 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 2,200 0 0 2,200
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
129 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 19,389 0 0 19,389
EQUIPMENT.........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 4,800 0 0 4,800
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
TOTAL OTHER 0 187,173 0 0 0 187,173
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 5,583 0 0 5,583
TACTICAL VEHICLES
37 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 44,440 0 0 44,440
MODIFICATIONS.....
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
45 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 8,000 0 0 8,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 0 58,023 0 0 0 58,023
MARINE CORPS......

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
OTHER AIRLIFT
6 HC-130J............ 1 100,000 0 1 100,000
OTHER AIRCRAFT
17 MQ-9............... 21 339,740 0 21 339,740
18 RQ-20B PUMA........ 0 13,500 0 0 13,500
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
20 B-1B............... 0 4,000 0 0 4,000
22 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 149,778 0 0 149,778
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
23 A-10............... 0 10,350 0 0 10,350
OTHER AIRCRAFT
45 U-2 MODS........... 0 7,900 0 0 7,900
54 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 36,400 0 0 36,400
59 E-8................ 0 13,000 0 0 13,000
63 H-60............... 0 40,560 0 0 40,560
65 HC/MC-130 0 87,900 0 0 87,900
MODIFICATIONS.....
66 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 53,731 0 0 53,731
68 MQ-9 UAS PAYLOADS.. 0 16,000 0 0 16,000
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
70 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 91,500 0 0 91,500
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
71 AIRCRAFT 0 32,529 0 0 32,529
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
72 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 22,000 0 0 22,000
CHARGES...........
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 22 1,018,888 0 0 22 1,018,888
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL
2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 48 61,600 19 22,800 67 84,400
STANDOFF MISSILE..
Buy-back JASSM- [19] [22,800]
ER.............
5 AMRAAM............. 2 2,600 0 2 2,600
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 3,000 255,000 0 3,000 255,000
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 3,909 140,724 0 3,909 140,724
CLASS IV
13 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 33,602 0 0 33,602
TOTAL MISSILE 6,959 493,526 19 22,800 6,978 516,326
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 29,587 0 0 29,587
BOMBS
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 551,862 0 0 551,862
BOMBS.............
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 28,101 738,451 0 28,101 738,451
MUNITION..........
FLARES
15 FLARES............. 0 12,116 0 0 12,116
FUZES
16 FUZES.............. 0 81,000 0 0 81,000
SMALL ARMS
17 SMALL ARMS......... 0 8,500 0 0 8,500
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 28,101 1,421,516 0 0 28,101 1,421,516
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 9,680 0 0 9,680
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 9,680 0 0 9,680
VEHICLE...........
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 19,680 0 0 19,680
VEHICLES..........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
6 SECURITY AND 0 24,880 0 0 24,880
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
7 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 34,680 0 0 34,680
VEHICLES..........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 9,736 0 0 9,736
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
9 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 24,680 0 0 24,680
VEHICLES..........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV 0 9,680 0 0 9,680
AND CLEANING EQU..
11 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 9,680 0 0 9,680
SUPPORT VEHICLES..
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 6,156 0 0 6,156
EQUIPMENT.........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 56,884 0 0 56,884
& LANDING SYS.....
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 46,236 0 0 46,236
SECURITY SYSTEM...
37 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 2,500 0 0 2,500
C2 SYSTEM.........
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
45 TACTICAL C-E 0 27,911 0 0 27,911
EQUIPMENT.........
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
51 PERSONAL SAFETY AND 0 13,600 0 0 13,600
RESCUE EQUIPMENT..
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
53 BASE PROCURED 0 28,800 0 0 28,800
EQUIPMENT.........
54 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 53,500 0 0 53,500
EQUIPMENT.........
55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 78,562 0 0 78,562
56 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 28,055 0 0 28,055
AND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
59 DCGS-AF............ 0 2,000 0 0 2,000
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,229,364 0 0 3,229,364
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
TOTAL OTHER 0 3,725,944 0 0 0 3,725,944
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 3,800 0 0 3,800
17 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 12,000 0 0 12,000
SYSTEMS NETWORK...
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
25 COUNTER IED & 0 5,534 0 0 5,534
IMPROVISED THREAT
TECHNOLOGIES......
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 41,559 0 0 41,559
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
AVIATION PROGRAMS
47 MANNED ISR......... 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
48 MC-12.............. 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
49 MH-60 BLACKHAWK.... 0 27,600 0 0 27,600
51 UNMANNED ISR....... 0 17,000 0 0 17,000
52 NON-STANDARD 0 13,000 0 0 13,000
AVIATION..........
53 U-28............... 0 51,722 0 0 51,722
54 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 0 36,500 0 0 36,500
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
61 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 100,850 0 0 100,850
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
62 INTELLIGENCE 0 16,500 0 0 16,500
SYSTEMS...........
64 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 0 7,700 0 0 7,700
67 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 59,891 0 0 59,891
68 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 21,135 0 0 21,135
<$5M..............
69 COMBAT MISSION 0 10,000 0 0 10,000
REQUIREMENTS......
71 OPERATIONAL 0 10,805 0 0 10,805
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
73 OPERATIONAL 0 126,539 0 0 126,539
ENHANCEMENTS......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 0 572,135 0 0 0 572,135
DEFENSE-WIDE......

TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 52,522 12,782,468 88 103,600 52,610 12,886,068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 11,585 11,585
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 276,912 12,500 289,412
..................... Basic research [7,500]
increase.
..................... Quantum information [5,000]
sciences.
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 65,283 65,283
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 92,115 5,000 97,115
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 445,895 17,500 463,395
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 28,600 28,600
6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 32,366 5,000 37,366
SURVIVABILITY.
..................... Program increase..... [5,000]
7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 8,674 8,674
8 0602126A TRACTOR JACK............. 400 400
9 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 64,847 -5,000 59,847
..................... Mission systems / [-5,000]
engine and drives
coordination.
10 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 25,571 25,571
TECHNOLOGY.
11 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 50,183 50,183
12 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 29,502 29,502
TECHNOLOGY.
13 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 28,500 10,000 38,500
SIMULATION.
..................... Pilot for cyber [10,000]
modeling and
simulation.
14 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 70,450 70,450
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
15 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY.... 75,541 75,541
16 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 5,032 5,032
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
17 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 12,394 12,394
PROGRAM.
18 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 40,444 2,500 42,944
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Advanced warheads [2,500]
technology.
19 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 58,283 58,283
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
20 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 29,582 29,582
21 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 21,244 21,244
22 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 24,131 2,500 26,631
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... General program [2,500]
increase.
23 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13,242 13,242
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 55,003 -5,000 50,003
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... General Program [-5,000]
Reduction.
25 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 14,958 14,958
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 78,159 78,159
TECHNOLOGY.
27 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 21,862 21,862
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
28 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 40,566 40,566
29 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 90,075 90,075
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 919,609 10,000 929,609
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
30 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 39,338 39,338
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 62,496 62,496
TECHNOLOGY.
32 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 124,958 -5,000 119,958
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Platform design and [-5,000]
structures systems.
33 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 102,686 20,000 122,686
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Accelerate ERCA gun.. [20,000]
34 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 119,739 72,500 192,239
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Modular scalable [2,500]
powertrain.
..................... Prototype Next [70,000]
Generation Combat
Vehicle.
35 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION 13,000 13,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
36 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 8,044 8,044
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 22,631 22,631
38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 25,682 25,682
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
40 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 3,762 3,762
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
41 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 4,896 4,896
42 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 6,041 6,041
43 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 31,491 31,491
TECHNOLOGY.
44 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 61,132 61,132
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 16,845 16,845
46 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 183,322 5,000 188,322
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
..................... Program increase..... [5,000]
47 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 11,104 11,104
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
48 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,885 5,885
PROGRAM.
49 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 61,376 61,376
TECHNOLOGY.
50 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 9,136 9,136
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
51 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 25,864 13,000 38,864
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Minor MILCON......... [8,000]
..................... Program increase..... [5,000]
52 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 34,883 2,500 37,383
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
..................... PNT research......... [2,500]
53 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY... 52,387 -5,000 47,387
..................... General program [-5,000]
decrease.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,026,698 103,000 1,129,698
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 10,777 10,777
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
56 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 42,802 42,802
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
57 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 45,254 45,254
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
58 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 22,700 22,700
TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
DEV.
59 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 41,974 14,000 55,974
AMMUNITION.
..................... Army UPL: Test and [14,000]
evaluation of M999
155mm.
60 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM 119,395 119,395
MODERNIZATION--ADV DEV.
61 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 8,746 8,746
SURVIVABILITY.
62 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 35,667 8,000 43,667
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
..................... ISR capabilities to [8,000]
support long range
field artillery.
63 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 7,350 7,350
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
64 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 14,749 14,749
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 3,687 3,687
DEVELOPMENT.
66 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 10,793 10,793
67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 14,248 14,248
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
68 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 34,284 34,284
69 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 18,044 18,044
DEVELOPMENT.
70 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT..... 95,660 95,660
71 0604020A CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM 38,000 38,000
(CFT) ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
72 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. 9,765 9,765
73 0604113A FUTURE TACTICAL UNMANNED 12,393 12,393
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (FTUAS).
74 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE 120,374 120,374
DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
75 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 95,347 95,347
INITIATIVES.
76 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 95,085 95,085
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
77 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM............. 52,894 52,894
79 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING 77,939 77,939
ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
80 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 51,030 30,000 81,030
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
..................... Accelerate delivery [30,000]
and capacity for IFPC.
81 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 65,817 5,000 70,817
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
..................... Army Cyber Center of [5,000]
Excellence.
82 1206120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 146,300 146,300
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
83 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 38,319 38,319
INTEGRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,329,393 57,000 1,386,393
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
84 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 32,293 32,293
85 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 78,699 78,699
DEVELOPMENT.
88 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 17,050 17,050
89 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 83,155 83,155
90 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 3,704 3,704
91 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 10,623 10,623
92 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 11,950 11,950
VEHICLES.
93 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 12,347 12,347
95 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 8,212 8,212
VEHICLES.
96 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS 393,613 -75,000 318,613
MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
DEV.
..................... Mobile Protected [-75,000]
Firepower decrease.
97 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 139,614 139,614
DEV.
98 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 4,507 4,507
AND EQUIPMENT.
99 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 49,436 49,436
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
100 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 95,172 95,172
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
101 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 22,628 22,628
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 13,297 13,297
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 9,145 9,145
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
104 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR 9,894 9,894
SUBMUNITION (BAT).
105 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 21,964 21,964
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
106 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 49,288 49,288
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
107 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 183,100 183,100
ENG DEV.
108 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 79,706 79,706
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
109 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 15,970 15,970
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
110 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 44,542 44,542
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
111 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 50,817 50,817
ENG DEV.
112 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 178,693 178,693
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
113 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 39,338 39,338
114 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 37,851 37,851
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
115 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 45,473 45,473
116 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 10,395 10,395
DEM/VAL.
117 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY 69,204 9,000 78,204
ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS--EMD.
..................... Suite of Vehicle [9,000]
Protection Systems.
118 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 1,781 1,781
119 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 113,758 113,758
DEVELOPMENT.
120 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 166,603 166,603
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
121 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 118,239 118,239
VEHICLE (AMPV).
122 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND 3,211 3,211
SECURITY SURVEILLANCE
RESPONSE CAPABILITY
(IGSSR-C).
123 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 15,889 15,889
CENTER (JTNC).
124 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 41,972 41,972
(JTN).
125 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............. 41,166 41,166
126 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL 5,175 5,175
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E).
127 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 4,496 4,496
(TSS).
128 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 51,178 51,178
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
129 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS 11,311 11,311
DESTRUCTION (CWMD).
131 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL 17,154 17,154
CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE
VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR
SUITE.
132 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL 36,626 36,626
DEVELOPMENT.
133 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO 3,829 3,829
SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER).
134 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM.. 41,928 -41,928 0
..................... Duplication concern [-41,928]
in contract writing
systems.
135 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM 28,276 28,276
MODERNIZATION (MWSM).
136 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 21,965 21,965
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 157,710 157,710
CAPABILITY INC 2--BLOCK
1.
138 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS.......... 86,167 86,167
139 0605054A EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 42,866 42,866
INITIATIVES.
140 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 15,984 15,984
SYSTEM (JTRS).
141 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 11,773 11,773
MISSILE (JAGM).
142 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 277,607 277,607
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
143 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 12,340 12,340
INTEGRATION (MIP).
144 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 2,686 2,686
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
145 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 2,706 2,706
EQUIPMENT.
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 4,521 4,521
150 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 8,922 8,922
DEVELOPMENT.
151 1205117A TRACTOR BEARS............ 23,170 23,170
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,192,689 -107,928 3,084,761
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
152 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 12,835 12,835
DEVELOPMENT.
153 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 12,135 12,135
DEVELOPMENT.
154 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 82,996 25,000 107,996
..................... Program increase..... [25,000]
155 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 19,821 19,821
156 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 246,574 246,574
157 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 30,430 30,430
PROGRAM.
159 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 305,759 15,000 320,759
FACILITIES.
..................... Increase to help [15,000]
manage directed
energy workloads.
160 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 62,379 62,379
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
161 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 40,496 40,496
ANALYSIS.
162 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 3,941 3,941
163 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 9,767 9,767
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
164 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 21,226 21,226
165 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 13,026 13,026
ITEMS.
166 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 52,718 52,718
TESTING.
167 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 57,049 57,049
168 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 2,801 2,801
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
169 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 60,942 60,942
170 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 29,050 29,050
ACTIVITIES.
171 0605805A MUNITIONS 42,332 42,332
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
172 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 3,216 3,216
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
173 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT 54,145 54,145
HEADQUARTERS--R&D - MHA.
174 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED 4,896 4,896
CREW TECHNOLOGY.
175 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC 63,011 63,011
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST
SITE.
176 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN 2,636 2,636
INTEL MODERNIZATION.
177 0606942A ASSESSMENTS AND 88,300 88,300
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
..................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT 1,322,481 40,000 1,362,481
SUPPORT.
.....................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 5,955 5,955
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
181 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 8,886 8,886
PROGRAM.
182 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............. 4,067 4,067
183 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 4,254 4,254
SUPPORT.
184 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 16,022 16,022
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
185 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE............ 4,577 4,577
186 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION 186,475 186,475
FIRES (LRPF).
187 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT 31,049 31,049
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
188 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 35,240 35,240
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
189 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT 157,822 157,822
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
190 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 4,189 4,189
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
191 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 192,637 192,637
PROGRAM.
194 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM 60,860 60,860
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT.
195 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM 52,019 52,019
UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS.
196 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS..... 2,400 2,400
197 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 65,369 65,369
IMPROVEMENT.
198 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 1 1
COCOM EXERCISE.
199 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 30,954 30,954
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
200 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 411,927 411,927
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
202 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED 40,676 40,676
HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS.
203 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 17,706 17,706
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
204 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 146 146
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
205 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 6,316 6,316
206 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 1,643 1,643
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
207 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 4,947 4,947
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
208 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 34,050 34,050
210 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 1,464 1,464
EQUIPMENT.
211 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 249 249
TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
SYSTEM DEV.
212 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND 79,283 79,283
MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
SYSTEM.
213 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 154,102 154,102
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
216 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 12,280 12,280
ACTIVITIES.
217 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 68,533 68,533
SECURITY PROGRAM.
218 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 68,619 68,619
SYSTEM.
220 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 2,034 2,034
CONTROL SYSTEM.
223 0305172A COMBINED ADVANCED 1,500 1,500
APPLICATIONS.
224 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 450 450
SERVICE (IBS).
225 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 6,000 6,000
VEHICLES.
226 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 12,416 12,416
SYSTEMS.
227 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 38,667 38,667
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
229 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 6,180 6,180
230 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 12,863 12,863
231 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 4,310 4,310
INTELLIGENCE.
233 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 53,958 53,958
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
234 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 12,119 12,119
(SPACE).
235 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 7,400 7,400
SYSTEM.
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,922,614 0 1,922,614
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 10,159,379 119,572 10,278,951
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 119,433 5,000 124,433
INITIATIVES.
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,237 19,237
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 458,708 10,000 468,708
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
..................... Quantum information [5,000]
sciences.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 597,378 15,000 612,378
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 14,643 2,500 17,143
RESEARCH.
..................... Directed energy...... [2,500]
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 124,049 124,049
RESEARCH.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 59,607 59,607
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 36,348 36,348
RESEARCH.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 56,197 -7,500 48,697
APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... ONR global growth.... [-7,500]
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 83,800 83,800
APPLIED RESEARCH.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,998 42,998
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,349 6,349
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 58,049 20,000 78,049
RESEARCH.
..................... General program [20,000]
increase.
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 147,771 147,771
APPLIED RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 37,545 37,545
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 159,697 5,000 164,697
PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
..................... Directed energy and [5,000]
electronic warfare/
unmanned and
autonomous systems.
16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 64,418 64,418
MANAGEMENT--ONR FIELD
ACITIVITIES.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 891,471 20,000 911,471
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
19 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 2,423 2,423
TECHNOLOGY.
21 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 150,245 -10,000 140,245
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
..................... Unjustified growth... [-10,000]
22 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 13,313 13,313
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603671N NAVY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 131,502 131,502
DEVELOPMENT (ATD).
24 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 232,996 232,996
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
25 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 58,657 58,657
PROGRAM.
30 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 161,859 4,500 166,359
PROTOTYPES (INP)
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... DE & EW/unmanned and [4,500]
autonomous systems.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 750,995 -5,500 745,495
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
31 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 29,747 29,747
APPLICATIONS.
32 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 7,050 7,050
33 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 793 793
34 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 7,058 7,058
35 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,540 3,540
RECONNAISSANCE.
36 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 59,741 2,500 62,241
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Locust/HCUS/INP [2,500]
Transition.
37 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 62,727 -26,000 36,727
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
..................... Barracuda EDMs ahead [-26,000]
of PDR and CDR.
38 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 8,570 8,570
DEFENSE.
39 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 5,440 5,440
DEVELOPMENT.
40 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 162,222 162,222
41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 11,745 11,745
42 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 114,265 114,265
43 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 740 740
44 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 1,122 1,122
45 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 109,086 3,500 112,586
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Advanced submarine [3,500]
propulsion
development.
46 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 9,374 9,374
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
47 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 89,419 18,000 107,419
DESIGN.
..................... CHAMP acceleration... [18,000]
48 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 13,348 13,348
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
49 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 256,137 256,137
SYSTEMS.
50 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 22,109 22,109
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
51 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 29,744 29,744
52 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 27,997 27,997
(LCS).
53 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 16,351 16,351
54 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT......... 514,846 514,846
55 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES...... 103,633 29,400 133,033
..................... Project 2552: Align [-5,000]
with deferred LCS-6
SSMM test.
..................... Transfer from PE [16,700]
64028N.
..................... Transfer from PE [10,100]
64126N.
..................... Transfer from PE [7,600]
64127N.
56 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND 7,931 7,931
ANALYSIS.
57 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT...... 134,772 134,772
58 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 9,307 9,307
60 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 1,828 1,828
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 43,148 43,148
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
62 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 5,915 5,915
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 19,811 19,811
64 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 25,656 25,656
65 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 5,301 5,301
66 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 267,985 267,985
67 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 4,059 4,059
PRODUCTIVITY.
68 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 377,878 377,878
69 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 381,770 381,770
70 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 60,535 60,535
73 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,652 9,652
DEVELOPMENT.
74 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 15,529 -15,529
..................... Program delay and no [-15,529]
GLGP EMD FYDP funding.
75 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 27,581 27,581
TESTING.
76 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 101,566 101,566
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
77 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 223,344 223,344
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
78 0604014N F/A -18 INFRARED SEARCH 108,700 24,000 132,700
AND TRACK (IRST).
..................... IRST block II risk [24,000]
reduction.
79 0604027N DIGITAL WARFARE OFFICE... 26,691 26,691
80 0604028N SMALL AND MEDIUM UNMANNED 16,717 -16,717
UNDERSEA VEHICLES.
..................... Transfer to PE 63596N [-16,717]
81 0604029N UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE 30,187 30,187
CORE TECHNOLOGIES.
82 0604030N RAPID PROTOTYPING, 48,796 48,796
EXPERIMENTATION AND
DEMONSTRATION..
83 0604031N LARGE UNMANNED UNDERSEA 92,613 -21,200 71,413
VEHICLES.
..................... Early to need........ [-21,200]
84 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 58,121 58,121
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
86 0604126N LITTORAL AIRBORNE MCM.... 17,622 -10,100 7,522
..................... Transfer to PE 63596N [-10,100]
87 0604127N SURFACE MINE 18,154 -7,600 10,554
COUNTERMEASURES.
..................... Transfer to PE 63596N [-7,600]
88 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 47,278 47,278
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
90 0604289M NEXT GENERATION LOGISTICS 11,081 11,081
92 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY 7,107 7,107
CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE.
93 0604454N LX (R)................... 5,549 5,549
94 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA 87,669 87,669
PROTOTYPING.
95 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 132,818 132,818
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
96 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 7,230 7,230
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
97 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 143,062 143,062
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
99 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,889 8,889
MIP.
100 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL 25,291 25,291
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.
101 0304240N ADVANCED TACTICAL 9,300 9,300
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.
102 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 466 466
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,293,713 -19,746 4,273,967
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
103 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT. 12,798 12,798
104 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 32,128 32,128
105 0604214M AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 46,363 -16,200 30,163
..................... Lacks operational [-16,200]
justification/need.
107 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 3,771 3,771
108 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 16,611 16,611
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
109 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 17,368 17,368
ENGINEERING.
110 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 2,134 2,134
111 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 9,729 9,729
112 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 57,688 57,688
113 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 223,565 223,565
114 0604245M H-1 UPGRADES............. 58,097 58,097
116 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 42,485 42,485
117 0604262N V-22A.................... 143,079 143,079
118 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 20,980 10,000 30,980
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Increase to advance [10,000]
aircrew physiological
monitoring.
119 0604269N EA-18.................... 147,419 95,300 242,719
..................... UPL--EA-18G Advanced [95,300]
Modes / Cognitive EW.
120 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 89,824 31,600 121,424
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... UPL--EA-18G Offensive [31,600]
Airborne Electronic
Attack Special
Mission Pod.
121 0604273M EXECUTIVE HELO 245,064 245,064
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 459,529 459,529
(NGJ).
124 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 3,272 3,272
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
125 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 115,253 115,253
(NGJ) INCREMENT II.
126 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 397,403 397,403
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
127 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 939 50,000 50,939
INTEGRATION.
..................... Mk 41 VLS integration [50,000]
128 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 104,448 104,448
129 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 165,881 19,000 184,881
IMPROVEMENTS.
..................... Navy UPL: SM-6 Blk 1B [19,000]
21" rocket motor.
130 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 10,831 10,831
131 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 33,429 33,429
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
132 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 35,635 35,635
SENSORS.
133 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 126,932 126,932
MODERNIZATION.
134 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 62,448 62,448
135 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 9,710 9,710
SYSTEMS.
136 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 19,303 19,303
CONVERSION.
137 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 27,059 27,059
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
138 0604530N ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR 184,106 184,106
(AAG).
139 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 148,233 148,233
140 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 60,824 60,824
WARFARE SYSTEM.
141 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 60,062 6,000 66,062
LIVE FIRE T&E.
..................... Planning to support [6,000]
FY21 award of LHA-9.
142 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 4,642 4,642
RESOURCES.
144 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 25,756 25,756
145 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 95,147 95,147
DEVELOPMENT.
146 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 7,107 7,107
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
147 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 6,539 6,539
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
148 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 441 441
SYSTEMS.
149 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 180,391 180,391
& CONTROL).
150 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 178,538 178,538
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
151 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 120,507 120,507
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
152 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 29,715 29,715
153 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 8,095 8,095
154 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 121,026 121,026
155 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 66,566 66,566
(JSF)--EMD.
156 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 65,494 65,494
(JSF)--EMD.
159 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 14,005 14,005
DEVELOPMENT.
160 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 268,567 -90,100 178,467
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Duplication concern [-26,300]
in contract writing
systems.
..................... Lengthy delivery [-63,800]
timelines for Navy
Personnel and Pay
System.
161 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 5,618 5,618
SUPPORT.
162 0605212M CH-53K RDTE.............. 326,945 326,945
164 0605215N MISSION PLANNING......... 32,714 32,714
165 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS.......... 51,486 51,486
166 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 1,444 1,444
(SSC).
167 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS........... 1,298 1,298
168 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION 718,942 718,942
(UCA).
169 0605450M JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 6,759 6,759
MISSILE (JAGM).
171 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 37,296 37,296
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
172 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 160,389 160,389
(MMA) INCREMENT III.
173 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 98,223 98,223
VEHICLES SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
174 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 2,260 2,260
VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
175 0204202N DDG-1000................. 161,264 161,264
180 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 44,098 44,098
SYSTEMS.
182 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS 6,808 6,808
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,042,480 105,600 6,148,080
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
183 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 94,576 94,576
DEVELOPMENT.
184 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 10,981 10,981
DEVELOPMENT.
185 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 77,014 77,014
186 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 48 48
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
187 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,942 3,942
SUPPORT--NAVY.
188 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 48,797 48,797
189 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER.. 5,000 5,000
191 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1,029 1,029
SERVICES.
192 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 87,565 -9,000 78,565
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
..................... Insufficient budget [-9,000]
justification.
193 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 4,231 4,231
SUPPORT.
194 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 1,072 1,072
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
195 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 97,471 97,471
SUPPORT.
196 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 373,834 373,834
SUPPORT.
197 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 21,554 21,554
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
198 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 16,227 16,227
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
200 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 24,303 24,303
SUPPORT.
201 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 43,262 43,262
202 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION 41,918 41,918
MANAGEMENT.
203 0606942M ASSESSMENTS AND 7,000 7,000
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
204 0606942N ASSESSMENTS AND 48,800 48,800
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
205 0305327N INSIDER THREAT........... 1,682 1,682
206 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 1,579 1,579
(DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES).
208 1206867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 8,684 8,684
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,020,569 -9,000 1,011,569
SUPPORT.
.....................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,549,503 1,549,503
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
210 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS.... 5,426 5,426
211 0604840M F-35 C2D2................ 259,122 259,122
212 0604840N F-35 C2D2................ 252,360 252,360
213 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 130,515 130,515
CAPABILITY (CEC).
214 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,127 3,127
AND CONTROL.
215 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 157,679 157,679
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
216 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 43,198 43,198
PROGRAM.
217 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 11,311 11,311
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
218 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 39,313 39,313
COMMUNICATIONS.
219 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 193,086 193,086
220 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 25,014 25,014
(TACTICAL).
221 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 11,661 11,661
222 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 282,395 8,700 291,095
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
..................... Restore MST to [8,700]
maintain 2020 IOC.
223 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 36,959 35,000 71,959
SYSTEM.
..................... Additional TRAPS [35,000]
units.
224 0204313N SHIP-TOWED ARRAY 15,454 15,454
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.
225 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 6,073 6,073
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
226 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 45,029 45,029
RADAR (G/ATOR).
227 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 104,903 104,903
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
228 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 4,544 4,544
SUPPORT.
229 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 66,889 66,889
READINESS SUPPORT.
230 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 120,762 -99,240 21,522
..................... Cancel ER program.... [-99,240]
231 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 104,696 12,000 116,696
..................... UPL--Tactical [12,000]
Targeting Network
Technology
acceleration.
232 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 28,421 28,421
INTEGRATION.
233 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 94,155 94,155
234 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 121,805 15,000 136,805
..................... UPL--F/A-18 E/F Super [15,000]
Hornet Engine
Enhancements.
235 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 117,028 117,028
SYSTEMS.
236 0206313M MARINE CORPS 174,779 174,779
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
237 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND 4,826 4,826
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
(CAC2S).
238 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 97,152 97,152
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
239 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 30,156 30,156
SERVICES SUPPORT.
240 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 39,976 39,976
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
241 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT 22,637 -22,637
VEHICLE.
..................... Lacks operational [-22,637]
justification/need.
242 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 40,121 40,121
243 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 32,473 32,473
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
249 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 23,697 23,697
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
250 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 44,228 44,228
SECURITY PROGRAM.
252 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,081 6,081
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
253 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,529 8,529
VEHICLES.
254 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 41,212 41,212
INTEROPERABILITY.
255 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 7,687 7,687
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
256 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 42,846 42,846
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
257 0305220N MQ-4C TRITON............. 14,395 14,395
258 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 9,843 9,843
259 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 524 524
260 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 5,360 5,360
UAS (STUASL0).
261 0305239M RQ-21A................... 10,914 10,914
262 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 81,231 81,231
DEVELOPMENT.
263 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 5,956 5,956
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
264 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION....... 219,894 219,894
265 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 7,097 7,097
SUPPORT.
266 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 36,560 36,560
IF).
267 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 7,284 7,284
(MARITECH).
268 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 39,174 39,174
(SPACE).
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,885,060 -51,177 4,833,883
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 18,481,666 55,177 18,536,843
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 348,322 10,000 358,322
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
..................... Quantum information [5,000]
sciences.
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 154,991 154,991
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 14,506 2,500 17,006
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... Directed energy [2,500]
research.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 517,819 12,500 530,319
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 125,373 4,000 129,373
..................... Advanced materials [4,000]
analysis.
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 130,547 5,000 135,547
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... High speed systems [5,000]
technology
(hypersonic vehicle
structures).
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 112,518 112,518
APPLIED RESEARCH.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 190,919 22,500 213,419
..................... Affordable Responsive [15,000]
Modular Rocket.
..................... Multi-mode propulsion [3,000]
..................... Solid rocket motor [2,000]
produce on-demand.
..................... Turbine engine [2,500]
technology.
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 166,534 -7,500 159,034
..................... General program [-7,500]
reduction.
9 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 8,288 8,288
MANAGEMENT-- MAJOR
HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES.
11 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 112,841 112,841
12 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 141,898 4,000 145,898
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Skywave technologies [4,000]
laboratory.
13 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 162,420 162,420
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
14 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 43,359 12,500 55,859
RESEARCH.
..................... Directed energy [2,500]
research.
..................... High powered [10,000]
microwave.
15 1206601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 117,645 6,000 123,645
..................... Wargaming and [6,000]
simulator lab.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,312,342 46,500 1,358,842
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
16 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 34,426 -2,500 31,926
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
..................... General program [-5,000]
reduction.
..................... Materials [2,500]
affordability.
17 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 15,150 1,000 16,150
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
..................... Prevention/enhanced [1,000]
maintainability
technologies.
18 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 39,968 39,968
SENSORS.
19 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 121,002 10,000 131,002
DEMO.
..................... Design/Manufacture [10,000]
aircraft aft body
drag reduction
devices.
20 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 115,462 24,000 139,462
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
..................... General program [9,000]
increase.
..................... Multi-mode propulsion [5,000]
..................... Technology for the [10,000]
Sustainment of
Strategic Systems.
21 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 55,319 5,000 60,319
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... RF/EO/IR warning and [5,000]
countermeasures.
22 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 54,895 54,895
TECHNOLOGY.
23 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 10,674 10,674
SYSTEM (MSSS).
24 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 36,463 36,463
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
25 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 194,981 194,981
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 43,368 10,000 53,368
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Demonstrator laser [10,000]
weapon system.
27 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 42,025 42,025
PROGRAM.
28 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 51,064 51,064
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 814,797 47,500 862,297
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
30 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,568 5,568
DEVELOPMENT.
32 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 18,194 18,194
TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 2,305 2,305
DEVELOPMENT.
35 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 41,856 41,856
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
37 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER 2,314,196 2,314,196
38 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 14,894 14,894
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
39 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND 34,585 34,585
SENSORS.
40 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS 9,740 9,740
CENTER (NAOC) RECAP.
41 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 12,960 12,960
42 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 71,501 71,501
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
43 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF 62,618 62,618
WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS.
46 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 28,350 10,000 38,350
ENTERPRISE R&D.
..................... Tanker prototype..... [10,000]
48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 1,186,075 222,800 1,408,875
..................... Acceleration of [100,000]
Hypersonic
Conventional Strike
Weapon.
..................... Low cost attritable [80,000]
aircraft prototype.
..................... Rapid Sustainment [42,800]
Initiative.
49 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 345,041 69,400 414,441
DETERRENT.
..................... UPL program [69,400]
acceleration.
50 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 503,997 503,997
DOMINANCE.
51 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 40,326 40,326
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
52 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP).... 29,800 29,800
54 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK 41,880 41,880
EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
55 0305601F MISSION PARTNER 10,074 10,074
ENVIRONMENTS.
56 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS 253,825 253,825
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
57 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES. 16,325 16,325
59 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION 17,577 -17,577
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
..................... Duplication concern.. [-17,577]
60 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 286,629 286,629
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
61 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS.... 7,940 7,940
62 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON. 138,052 138,052
63 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 39,338 39,338
SYSTEMS.
64 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM 383,113 383,113
SYSTEM.
65 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 91,018 91,018
66 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND 45,542 45,542
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
67 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL 51,419 51,419
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
(PTES).
68 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL 29,776 29,776
SERVICE (PTS).
69 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES 29,379 29,379
(PSCS)--AGGREGATED.
70 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 366,050 -50,000 316,050
SPACE.
..................... Space RCO Solar Power [-50,000]
Project--Early to
need.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 6,529,943 234,623 6,764,566
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
71 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON 39,602 39,602
ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS.
72 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 58,531 58,531
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
73 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.. 4,468 4,468
74 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,909 1,909
DEVELOPMENT.
75 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 207,746 50,000 257,746
ENTERPRISE.
..................... Increase to [50,000]
accelerate 21st
Century Battle
Management Command
and Control.
76 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 14,421 14,421
EQUIPMENT.
77 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 73,158 73,158
(SDB)--EMD.
81 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 7,153 7,153
ATTACK.
83 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 58,590 58,590
DEVELOPMENT.
84 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,990 2,990
85 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 20,028 20,028
86 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 15,787 15,787
MUNITION.
87 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 8,919 8,919
88 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 35,895 35,895
89 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 69,001 69,001
90 0307581F JSTARS RECAP............. 0 50,000 50,000
..................... Continue JSTARS recap [50,000]
GMTI radar
development.
91 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 614,920 85,000 699,920
WEAPON.
..................... UPL Program [85,000]
acceleration.
92 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 172,902 172,902
97 0605221F KC-46.................... 88,170 88,170
98 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.. 265,465 265,465
99 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER. 457,652 457,652
105 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 3,617 3,617
BATTLE MGMT.
106 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 261,758 261,758
SYSTEM.
107 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 91,907 91,907
MODERNIZATION.
108 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS.............. 137,095 137,095
109 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON... 43,175 43,175
110 0207423F ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS 14,888 14,888
SYSTEMS.
111 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 1,015 1,015
TRAINING.
116 0401310F C-32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT 7,943 7,943
RECAPITALIZATION.
117 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 673,032 673,032
RECAPITALIZATION (PAR).
118 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS... 13,653 13,653
119 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 939 939
LOCATOR.
120 1203269F GPS IIIC................. 451,889 451,889
121 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 46,668 46,668
OPERATIONS.
122 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 20,676 20,676
123 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 134,463 134,463
SYSTEMS.
124 1206426F SPACE FENCE.............. 20,215 20,215
125 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 151,506 151,506
(SPACE).
126 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 27,337 27,337
127 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 3,970 3,970
(SPACE).
128 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 60,565 60,565
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
129 1206442F EVOLVED SBIRS............ 643,126 100,000 743,126
..................... Accelerate sensor [100,000]
development.
130 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 245,447 245,447
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 5,272,191 285,000 5,557,191
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
131 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 34,256 34,256
DEVELOPMENT.
132 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 91,844 15,000 106,844
..................... Test infrastructure [15,000]
improvements.
133 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 34,614 34,614
135 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 18,043 18,043
& EVALUATION.
136 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 692,784 692,784
SUPPORT.
137 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 233,924 233,924
POWER.
138 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG 263,488 263,488
& COMBAT SYS.
139 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 153,591 153,591
REACH.
140 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, 232,315 232,315
NETWORK, & BUS SYS.
141 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 169,868 169,868
BATTLE MGMT.
142 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY 226,219 226,219
INTEGRATION.
143 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED 38,400 38,400
PRGM TECHNOLOGY.
144 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR 125,761 125,761
SYSTEMS.
147 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 10,642 10,642
148 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 162,216 162,216
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
149 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 28,888 28,888
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
150 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 35,285 35,285
MATURATION.
153 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 20,545 20,545
SERVICES (EIS).
154 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 12,367 12,367
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
155 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 1,448 1,448
157 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3,998 3,998
158 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 23,254 23,254
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
159 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 169,912 169,912
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
160 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS 10,508 10,508
CENTER--MHA.
161 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 19,721 19,721
PROGRAM (SPACE).
162 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 25,620 25,620
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,839,511 15,000 2,854,511
SUPPORT.
.....................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 16,534,124 16,534,124
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
165 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 11,344 11,344
FLIGHT TRAINING.
167 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 47,287 -34,146 13,141
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
..................... Poor agile [-34,146]
development
implementation and
lenghty delivery
timeline.
168 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 32,770 32,770
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
169 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL 68,368 68,368
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
170 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 32,574 32,574
171 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION.......... 26,112 26,112
172 0606942F ASSESSMENTS AND 99,100 99,100
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
173 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 280,414 14,800 295,214
..................... Air Force requested [14,800]
realignment.
174 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 5,955 5,955
MISSILE (ALCM).
175 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 76,030 76,030
176 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 105,561 105,561
177 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS...... 156,047 156,047
179 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 10,442 10,442
COMMUNICATIONS.
180 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 22,833 22,833
PLANNING & ANALYSIS
NETWORK.
181 0101328F ICBM REENTRY VEHICLES.... 18,412 18,412
183 0102110F UH-1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 288,022 288,022
184 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 9,252 9,252
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
186 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 115,345 115,345
188 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 26,738 26,738
189 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 191,564 191,564
190 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 192,883 192,883
191 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 15,238 15,238
SUPPRESSION.
192 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 603,553 603,553
193 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 549,501 549,501
194 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 37,230 37,230
195 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 61,393 61,393
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
196 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 647 647
198 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 14,891 14,891
PROCUREMENT.
199 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 13,901 13,901
200 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 121,203 121,203
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
202 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 60,062 60,062
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
203 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 106,102 106,102
CENTER (AOC).
204 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 6,413 6,413
CENTER (CRC).
205 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 120,664 10,000 130,664
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
..................... Increase to [10,000]
accelerate 21st
Century Battle
Management Command
and Control.
206 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 2,659 2,659
SYSTEMS.
208 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 10,316 10,316
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
209 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 6,149 6,149
PARTY-MOD.
210 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,738 1,738
211 0207452F DCAPES................... 13,297 13,297
212 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL 1,788 1,788
NUCLEAR FORENSICS.
213 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET 14,888 14,888
ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM
(JSTARS).
214 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 24,699 24,699
215 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 17,078 17,078
SIMULATION.
216 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 6,141 6,141
CENTERS.
218 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,225 4,225
EXERCISES.
219 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 63,653 63,653
220 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION....... 6,949 6,949
221 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 40,526 40,526
OPERATIONS.
222 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 24,166 24,166
OPERATIONS.
223 0208097F JOINT CYBER COMMAND AND 13,000 13,000
CONTROL (JCC2).
224 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP).... 28,759 28,759
229 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED 3,579 3,579
ON NETWORK (GSIN).
230 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND 29,620 29,620
EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES).
237 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER 6,633 6,633
NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR
BATTLESPACE AWARENESS.
238 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 57,758 57,758
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
240 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 99,088 99,088
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
241 0303133F HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO 51,612 51,612
SYSTEMS.
242 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 34,612 34,612
SECURITY PROGRAM.
244 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,170 2,170
DATA INITIATIVE.
246 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 106,873 106,873
ENTERPRISE.
247 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC 3,472 3,472
ANALYSIS.
250 0305015F C2 AIR OPERATIONS SUITE-- 8,608 8,608
C2 INFO SERVICES.
251 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE 1,586 1,586
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
252 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,492 4,492
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
254 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 26,942 26,942
255 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 6,271 6,271
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
256 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 8,383 8,383
259 0305128F SECURITY AND 418 418
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
261 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 3,845 3,845
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
268 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 48,518 48,518
270 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 175,334 175,334
SYSTEMS.
271 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 14,223 14,223
SYSTEMS.
272 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 24,554 24,554
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
273 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 221,690 221,690
274 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 14,288 14,288
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
275 0305238F NATO AGS................. 51,527 51,527
276 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 26,579 26,579
ENTERPRISE.
278 0305600F INTERNATIONAL 8,464 8,464
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
280 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 4,303 4,303
284 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,466 2,466
COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2).
285 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 4,117 4,117
(IMD).
287 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 105,988 105,988
288 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 25,071 25,071
(IF).
289 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 48,299 48,299
290 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 15,409 15,409
291 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 4,334 4,334
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
292 0401218F KC-135S.................. 3,493 3,493
293 0401219F KC-10S................... 6,569 6,569
294 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 3,172 3,172
AIRLIFT.
295 0401318F CV-22.................... 18,502 18,502
296 0401840F AMC COMMAND AND CONTROL 1,688 1,688
SYSTEM.
297 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 2,541 2,541
CONTROL.
298 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,897 1,897
IF).
299 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & 50,933 -35,060 15,873
OVERHAUL SYSTEM.
..................... Poor agile [-35,060]
development
implementation.
300 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 13,787 13,787
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
301 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 4,497 4,497
DEVELOPMENT.
302 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 2,022 2,022
303 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 108 108
ACTIVITIES.
304 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,023 2,023
AGENCY.
305 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,772 3,772
PROGRAM.
306 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 6,358 6,358
307 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,418 1,418
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
308 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 99,734 -11,816 87,918
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Poor agile [-11,816]
development
implementation.
309 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 14,161 14,161
STRATCOM--SPACE
ACTIVITIES.
310 1202247F AF TENCAP................ 26,986 26,986
311 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 80,168 80,168
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
312 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 17,808 17,808
(SPACE).
314 1203165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 8,937 8,937
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE AND CONTROL
SEGMENTS).
315 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 59,935 59,935
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
316 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, 21,019 21,019
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
317 1203179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,568 8,568
SERVICE (IBS).
318 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 10,641 10,641
(SPACE).
319 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 144,543 144,543
320 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 16,278 16,278
INTELLIGENCE.
321 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 72,256 -10,000 62,256
..................... Assumed cost savings. [-10,000]
322 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE 42,209 42,209
CENTER.
325 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 19,778 19,778
(SPACE).
326 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 19,572 19,572
OPERATIONS.
327 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 513,235 513,235
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 22,891,740 -66,222 22,825,518
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 40,178,343 574,901 40,753,244
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH...... 37,023 37,023
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 422,130 7,500 429,630
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
..................... Critical materials... [2,500]
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 42,702 10,000 52,702
INITIATIVES.
..................... Quantum information [5,000]
sciences.
..................... University-lab [5,000]
research partnership.
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 47,825 10,000 57,825
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
..................... TBI Treatment for [10,000]
blast injuries.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 85,919 85,919
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 30,412 30,412
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 42,103 42,103
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 708,114 27,500 735,614
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 19,170 2,500 21,670
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Insensitive munitions [2,500]
9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 101,300 101,300
11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 51,596 51,596
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 60,688 -7,500 53,188
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
..................... General program [-7,500]
reduction.
13 0602303E INFORMATION & 395,317 395,317
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 38,640 38,640
DEFENSE.
15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 192,674 192,674
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 14,969 14,969
17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 335,466 -2,500 332,966
..................... General program [2,500]
increase.
..................... MAD-FIRES reduction.. [-5,000]
18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 226,898 -15,000 211,898
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... General program [-15,000]
reduction.
19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 333,847 333,847
20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 161,151 161,151
DESTRUCTION APPLIED
RESEARCH.
21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 9,300 9,300
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY 35,921 35,921
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,976,937 -22,500 1,954,437
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,598 25,598
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 125,271 -14,000 111,271
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
..................... General program [-14,000]
reduction.
25 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 24,532 24,532
TESTING.
27 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 299,858 299,858
DESTRUCTION ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
28 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 13,017 13,017
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
29 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY....... 0 13,400 13,400
..................... MDA UPL: Accelerate [13,400]
hypersonic missile
defense.
31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH........ 20,365 22,200 42,565
..................... Accelerate hypersonic [22,200]
missile defense.
32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,644 18,644
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
34 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 277,603 5,000 282,603
SYSTEMS.
..................... Hypersonics weapons [5,000]
programs development
and transition.
35 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 254,671 110,000 364,671
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Blackjack increase... [110,000]
36 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS..... 19,472 19,472
37 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 37,263 37,263
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
38 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 13,621 13,621
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS--
MHA.
39 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 189,753 189,753
TECHNOLOGY.
40 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT 29,364 500 29,864
EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX).
..................... Defense technology [500]
innovation.
41 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION.... 83,143 20,000 103,143
..................... Commercial SAR [20,000]
satellites.
42 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 142,826 142,826
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
43 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 161,128 161,128
44 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 12,918 12,918
TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 106,049 106,049
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
46 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 12,696 -7,500 5,196
CAPABILITIES.
..................... General program [-7,500]
reduction.
47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 114,637 7,000 121,637
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
..................... Enhancing [5,000]
cybersecurity for
small vendors.
..................... Eye protection system [2,000]
48 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 49,667 2,500 52,167
PROGRAM.
..................... General program [2,500]
increase.
49 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 48,338 48,338
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 11,778 1,000 12,778
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
..................... General program [1,000]
increase.
52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 76,514 10,000 86,514
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
..................... Readiness Increase... [10,000]
53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 168,931 5,000 173,931
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
..................... Tunable filter, [5,000]
support for
microelectronics
development.
54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 5,992 5,992
55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 111,099 7,500 118,599
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Support for the [7,500]
Electronics
Resurgence Initiative.
56 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 185,984 185,984
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
57 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 438,569 -10,000 428,569
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... General program [-10,000]
reduction.
58 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 190,128 1,500 191,628
..................... Sensors and [1,500]
processing systems
technology.
59 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 13,564 13,564
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
60 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,050 15,050
INSTITUTE.
61 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 69,626 -10,000 59,626
PROJECTS.
..................... General program [-10,000]
reduction.
62 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 19,415 19,415
TECHNOLOGY.
63 0603924D8Z HIGH ENERGY LASER 69,533 69,533
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
64 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 96,389 15,000 111,389
& TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Hypersonics and [10,000]
directed energy test.
..................... Workforce development [5,000]
65 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 40,582 10,000 50,582
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
..................... Readiness Increase... [10,000]
66 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 26,644 26,644
67 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 79,380 79,380
DEVELOPMENT.
300 8888 NATIONAL SECURITY 0 150,000 150,000
INNOVATION ACTIVITIES.
..................... Establish office for [150,000]
capital investment.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,699,612 339,100 4,038,712
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
68 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 28,140 28,140
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
69 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 92,222 92,222
70 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE 2,506 2,506
DATA & INFORMATION
SERVICES.
71 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 40,016 10,000 50,016
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
..................... Readiness Increase... [10,000]
72 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 214,173 184,100 398,273
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
..................... MDA UPL: USFK JEON... [184,100]
73 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 926,359 -208,000 718,359
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
..................... Reduce FY19 Numbers.. [-208,000]
74 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 129,886 129,886
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
75 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 220,876 24,000 244,876
SENSORS.
..................... MDA UPL: USFK JEON... [24,000]
76 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 540,926 540,926
77 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 422,348 422,348
78 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 767,539 767,539
81 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 475,168 -50,000 425,168
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
..................... Inconsistent [-50,000]
capability delivery.
82 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 48,767 48,767
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
83 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 54,925 54,925
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
84 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 16,916 16,916
85 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 149,715 -33,000 116,715
(SBX).
..................... Reduce FY19 Numbers.. [-33,000]
86 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 300,000 300,000
PROGRAMS.
87 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 365,681 71,900 437,581
TEST.
..................... MDA UPL: USFK JEON... [71,900]
88 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 517,852 -31,500 486,352
TARGETS.
..................... MDA UPL: USFK JEON... [4,500]
..................... Reduce FY19 Numbers.. [-36,000]
89 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 11,347 11,347
90 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 8,528 8,528
91 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,477 5,000 8,477
CORROSION PROGRAM.
..................... Corrosion prevention. [5,000]
92 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 148,822 80,000 228,822
INITIATIVES.
..................... Laser scaling for [80,000]
boost phase intercept.
93 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT... 58,607 58,607
94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 12,993 12,993
DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING.
95 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE....... 120,444 10,500 130,944
..................... Accelerate hypersonic [10,500]
missile defense.
96 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 1,431,702 50,000 1,481,702
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Quartermaster [50,000]
Pathfinder.
97 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 233,142 5,500 238,642
MICROELECTRONICS.
..................... New trust approach [5,500]
development.
98 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM 99,333 99,333
99 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,781 3,781
(DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM
COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604673C PACIFIC DISCRIMINATING 95,765 95,765
RADAR.
101 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR 3,768 3,768
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA).
103 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 22,435 22,435
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
104 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 164,562 164,562
RADAR (LRDR).
105 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 561,220 -139,400 421,820
INTERCEPTORS.
..................... Reduce FY19 Numbers.. [-139,400]
106 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 61,017 61,017
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
107 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST........... 95,756 95,756
108 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 81,001 81,001
SENSOR TEST.
109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 27,692 27,692
111 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 81,934 -9,300 72,634
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
..................... Reduce FY19 Numbers.. [-9,300]
112 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE 8,256 8,256
113 0300206R ENTERPRISE INFORMATION 2,600 2,600
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,104 3,104
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 985 985
116 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & 36,955 36,955
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 16,484 73,000 89,484
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
..................... MDA UPL: Initiate [73,000]
missile defense
tracking system.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 8,709,725 42,800 8,752,525
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,333 8,333
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 263,414 263,414
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 388,701 388,701
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
121 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 19,503 19,503
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
122 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 6,163 6,163
DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11,988 -11,988
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Lengthy delivery [-11,988]
timelines.
124 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 296 296
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
125 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 1,489 1,489
PROGRAM.
126 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 9,590 9,590
INITIATIVES.
127 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 3,173 3,173
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
128 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 2,105 1,000 3,105
INTEGRATION.
..................... Data and advanced [1,000]
analytics.
129 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY 21,156 21,156
INITIATIVES (DAI)--
FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
130 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 10,731 10,731
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 6,374 -6,374
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
..................... Duplication concern.. [-6,374]
133 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 56,178 2,500 58,678
MICROELECTRONICS.
..................... New trust approach [2,500]
development.
134 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 2,512 2,512
SYSTEM.
135 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 2,435 2,435
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
136 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM 17,048 17,048
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 831,189 -14,862 816,327
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 45,604 45,604
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
137 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,661 6,661
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
138 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 4,088 4,088
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
139 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 258,796 10,000 268,796
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
..................... Advanced hypersonic [10,000]
wind tunnel
experimentation.
140 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 31,356 31,356
EVALUATIONS.
141 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT.......... 65,646 65,646
142 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 84,184 5,000 89,184
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
..................... Cyber range capacity [5,000]
and development.
143 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 22,576 -5,000 17,576
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
..................... General program [-5,000]
reduction.
144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 52,565 52,565
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
146 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 38,872 38,872
147 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,534 3,534
SUPPORT--OSD.
148 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,050 5,050
SECURITY.
149 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 11,450 11,450
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
150 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 1,693 1,693
(INTELLIGENCE).
151 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 102,883 102,883
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,545 2,545
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 24,487 24,487
ANALYSIS.
161 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 56,853 56,853
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
162 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 24,914 24,914
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
163 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 20,179 5,000 25,179
EVALUATION.
..................... Improve software [5,000]
testing capabilities.
164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 13,643 13,643
165 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ--DEFENSE 4,124 4,124
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CENTER (DTIC).
166 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 5,768 5,768
ASSESSMENTS.
167 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND 1,030 1,030
RESOURCE ANALYSIS.
168 0606589D8W DEFENSE DIGITAL SERVICE 1,000 1,000
(DDS) DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT.
169 0606942C ASSESSMENTS AND 3,400 3,400
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
170 0606942S ASSESSMENTS AND 4,000 4,000
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
171 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 3,008 3,008
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
172 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 6,658 6,658
SUPPORT.
175 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 652 652
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
176 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,005 1,005
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
177 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED 21,363 21,363
APPLICATIONS.
180 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES 109,529 109,529
AND INNOVATION
INVESTMENTS.
181 0306310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: RDT&E 1,244 1,244
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
184 0804768J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 42,940 42,940
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
NON-MHA.
185 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 28,626 28,626
187 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER 5,104 5,104
(JSP).
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,117,030 15,000 1,132,030
SUPPORT.
.....................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,877,898 10,000 3,887,898
..................... Classified increase.. [10,000]
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
189 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 9,750 9,750
SYSTEM (ESS).
190 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,855 1,855
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
191 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 304 304
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
192 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 10,376 10,376
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
193 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 5,915 5,915
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
194 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 5,869 5,869
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
195 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 48,741 48,741
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
196 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,037 3,037
SYSTEM (PDAS).
197 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 62,814 62,814
203 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 16,561 16,561
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
204 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 14,769 14,769
DCS.
205 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 17,579 17,579
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
207 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 31,737 31,737
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
208 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 7,940 7,940
SECURITY PROGRAM.
209 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 229,252 229,252
SECURITY PROGRAM.
210 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS 19,611 19,611
SECURITY PROGRAM.
211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 46,900 46,900
CONTROL SYSTEM.
212 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 7,570 7,570
ORGANIZATION.
213 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION 7,947 7,947
ENVIRONMENT (JIE).
215 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE 39,400 39,400
SERVICES INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
224 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 6,262 -3,000 3,262
..................... General program [-3,000]
reduction.
225 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 16,780 16,780
227 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 6,286 6,286
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
230 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 2,970 2,970
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
233 0305327V INSIDER THREAT........... 5,954 5,000 10,954
..................... Personnel security [5,000]
and continuous
evaluation.
234 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,198 2,198
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
240 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 6,889 6,889
(IMD).
242 0708012K LOGISTICS SUPPORT 1,317 1,317
ACTIVITIES.
243 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS. 1,770 1,770
244 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY 1,805 1,805
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.
246 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 18,403 18,403
248 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 184,993 184,993
249 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 10,625 10,625
DEVELOPMENT.
250 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 102,307 102,307
251 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 46,942 46,942
252 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 2,479 2,479
253 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 27,270 27,270
254 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 1,121 1,121
255 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 42,471 42,471
256 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 4,780 4,780
ACTIVITIES.
257 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 12,176 12,176
INTELLIGENCE.
258 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 2,323 2,323
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,973,946 12,000 4,985,946
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 22,016,553 399,038 22,415,591
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 85,685 85,685
EVALUATION.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 64,332 64,332
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 70,992 10,900 81,892
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... Increase for test and [10,900]
evaluation
technologies.
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 221,009 10,900 231,909
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 221,009 10,900 231,909
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 91,056,950 1,159,588 92,216,538
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
56 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 1,000 1,000
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
58 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 1,500 1,500
TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
DEV.
61 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 3,000 3,000
SURVIVABILITY.
76 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 23,000 23,000
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 28,500 0 28,500
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
88 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 12,000 12,000
100 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 119,300 119,300
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
125 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............. 66,760 66,760
128 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 2,670 2,670
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
136 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 34,933 34,933
DEVELOPMENT.
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 1,200 1,200
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 236,863 0 236,863
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
184 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 2,548 2,548
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
185 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE............ 7,780 7,780
206 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 2,000 2,000
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
209 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE-- 8,000 8,000
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
216 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 23,199 23,199
ACTIVITIES.
226 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 14,000 14,000
SYSTEMS.
231 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 2,214 2,214
INTELLIGENCE.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 59,741 0 59,741
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 325,104 0 325,104
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 18,000 18,000
61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 13,900 13,900
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
74 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 1,400 1,400
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 33,300 0 33,300
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
149 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 1,100 1,100
& CONTROL).
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 1,100 0 1,100
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 117,282 117,282
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
236 0206313M MARINE CORPS 16,130 16,130
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 133,412 0 133,412
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 167,812 0 167,812
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
65 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 1,100 1,100
70 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 12,395 12,395
SPACE.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 13,495 0 13,495
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 188,127 188,127
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
186 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 4,500 4,500
187 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED 4,000 4,000
ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
188 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 1,000 1,000
217 0207610F BATTLEFIELD ABN COMM NODE 42,349 42,349
(BACN).
228 0208288F INTEL DATA APPLICATIONS.. 1,200 1,200
254 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 3,000 3,000
268 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 22,100 22,100
272 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 29,500 29,500
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
310 1202247F AF TENCAP................ 5,000 5,000
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 300,776 0 300,776
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 314,271 0 314,271
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
26 0603134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 13,648 13,648
SIMULATION.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 38,648 0 38,648
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 242,668 242,668
DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 242,668 0 242,668
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 192,131 192,131
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
250 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 3,632 3,632
251 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 11,040 11,040
253 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 11,700 11,700
254 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 725 725
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 219,228 0 219,228
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 500,544 0 500,544
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 1,307,731 0 1,307,731
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 2,076,360 2,076,360
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 107,946 107,946
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 732,485 732,485
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 1,169,508 1,169,508
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,180,460 1,180,460
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,467,500 1,467,500
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 4,285,211 4,285,211
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 482,201 482,201
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,536,851 1,536,851
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 8,274,299 8,274,299
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 3,516,859 3,516,859
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 438,733 438,733
180 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 231,518 231,518
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 150,268 150,268
200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND................................. 195,964 14,300 210,264
SOUTHCOM ABN GFE Sensor (GEOINT/SIGINT)......... [4,200]
SOUTHCOM Cyber HUMINT (CME/OPS)................. [1,000]
SOUTHCOM OSINT/PAI (CME/LIC/TOOLS).............. [1,600]
SOUTHCOM Overland Airborne ISR Flight Hours..... [7,200]
SOUTHCOM SIGINT Suite COMSAT RF................. [300]
210 US FORCES KOREA..................................... 59,625 59,625
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 25,905,788 14,300 25,920,088

MOBILIZATION
220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 370,941 370,941
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 573,560 573,560
240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 7,678 7,678
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 952,179 0 952,179

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 135,832 135,832
260 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 54,819 54,819
270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 69,599 69,599
280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 518,998 518,998
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 1,020,073 1,020,073
300 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 1,082,190 1,082,190
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 220,399 220,399
320 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 611,482 611,482
330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 698,962 -200,000 498,962
Marketing Cuts.................................. [-200,000]
340 EXAMINING........................................... 162,049 162,049
350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 215,622 215,622
360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 176,914 176,914
370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS............... 174,430 174,430
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 5,141,369 -200,000 4,941,369

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,259,622 1,259,622
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 588,047 588,047
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 931,462 931,462
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 696,114 696,114
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 461,637 461,637
430 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 447,564 447,564
440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,069,127 2,069,127
450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 261,021 261,021
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 379,541 379,541
470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,699,767 1,699,767
480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 192,686 192,686
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 240,917 240,917
500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............ 291,569 291,569
510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS................. 442,656 442,656
520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 48,251 48,251
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 10,009,981 0 10,009,981

UNDISTRIBUTED
1 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -200,000 -200,000
Army misrepresentation of civilian pay budget [-200,000]
request.........................................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 -200,000 -200,000

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 42,009,317 -385,700 41,623,617

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 13,867 13,867
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 536,438 536,438
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 113,225 113,225
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 551,141 551,141
050 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 89,073 89,073
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 409,531 409,531
070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 101,411 101,411
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 60,114 60,114
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 595,728 595,728
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 304,658 304,658
110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 22,175 22,175
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 2,797,361 0 2,797,361

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 11,832 11,832
130 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 18,218 18,218
140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 25,069 25,069
150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 6,248 6,248
160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 58,181 58,181
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 119,548 0 119,548

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 2,916,909 0 2,916,909

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 810,269 810,269
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 193,402 193,402
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 753,815 753,815
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 84,124 84,124
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 31,881 31,881
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 973,874 973,874
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 784,086 784,086
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 51,353 51,353
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 221,633 221,633
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,129,942 1,129,942
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 919,947 919,947
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 1,010,524 1,010,524
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,964,850 0 6,964,850

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,017 10,017
140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 72,746 72,746
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 83,105 83,105
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 10,678 10,678
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 254,753 254,753
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 3,146 3,146
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 434,445 0 434,445

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 7,399,295 0 7,399,295

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 5,372,399 5,372,399
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 2,023,351 2,023,351
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 56,225 56,225
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 156,081 156,081
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 682,379 682,379
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,253,756 1,253,756
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 66,649 66,649
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 939,368 939,368
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 4,439,566 4,439,566
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 997,663 997,663
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 8,751,526 8,751,526
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 2,168,876 2,168,876
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 1,349,593 1,700 1,351,293
SOUTHCOM CCO Sensor Integration................. [1,700]
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 215,255 215,255
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 632,446 632,446
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 373,046 373,046
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,452,075 1,452,075
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 153,719 153,719
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 63,039 63,039
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 89,339 89,339
230 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS............. 8,475 8,475
240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 424,088 424,088
260 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,361,947 1,361,947
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 823,952 823,952
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 494,101 494,101
300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 921,936 -45,000 876,936
General reduction............................... [-45,000]
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 2,040,389 406,000 2,446,389
FSRM to 100% max executable..................... [406,000]
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,414,753 4,414,753
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 41,725,992 362,700 42,088,692

MOBILIZATION
330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 549,142 549,142
340 READY RESERVE FORCE................................. 310,805 310,805
360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 161,150 161,150
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 120,338 120,338
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 24,097 24,097
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,165,532 0 1,165,532

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 145,481 145,481
410 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 9,637 9,637
420 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 149,687 149,687
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 879,557 879,557
450 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 184,436 184,436
460 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 223,159 223,159
470 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 181,086 181,086
480 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 96,006 96,006
490 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 72,083 72,083
500 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 54,156 54,156
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 1,995,288 0 1,995,288

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 574,994 574,994
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,089,964 1,089,964
530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 164,074 164,074
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 418,350 418,350
580 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 167,106 167,106
600 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT.......... 333,556 333,556
610 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 663,690 663,690
650 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 705,087 705,087
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,116,821 0 4,116,821

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 49,003,633 362,700 49,366,333

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 873,320 873,320
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 1,094,187 1,094,187
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 314,182 314,182
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 98,136 98,136
050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 183,546 183,546
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 832,636 832,636
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,151,390 2,151,390
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 5,547,397 0 5,547,397

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
080 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 16,453 16,453
090 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 1,144 1,144
100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 106,360 106,360
110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 46,096 46,096
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 389,751 389,751
130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 201,662 201,662
140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 32,461 32,461
150 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 24,217 24,217
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 818,144 0 818,144

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 50,859 50,859
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 29,735 29,735
170 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 386,375 386,375
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 466,969 0 466,969

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 6,832,510 0 6,832,510

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 569,584 569,584
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 6,902 6,902
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 109,776 109,776
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 538 538
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 18,888 18,888
060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 574 574
070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 17,561 17,561
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 121,070 121,070
090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 337 337
100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 23,964 23,964
110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 36,356 36,356
120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 103,562 103,562
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,009,112 0 1,009,112

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,868 1,868
140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 12,849 12,849
160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 3,177 3,177
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 17,894 0 17,894

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 1,027,006 0 1,027,006

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 99,173 99,173
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 19,430 19,430
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 39,962 39,962
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 101,829 101,829
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 260,394 0 260,394

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 11,176 11,176
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 11,176 0 11,176

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 271,570 0 271,570

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,164,810 1,164,810
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 758,178 25,000 783,178
Increase for F-35 sustainment to accelerate [25,000]
depot component repair capability...............
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,509,027 1,509,027
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,323,330 1,323,330
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 3,511,830 3,511,830
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 2,892,705 25,000 2,917,705
Additional demo................................. [25,000]
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 7,613,084 645,900 8,258,984
Increase for JSTARS buy-back.................... [95,900]
WSS to 100% executable.......................... [550,000]
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 4,345,208 50,000 4,395,208
Increase for JSTARS buy-back.................... [50,000]
080 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 5,989,215 5,989,215
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 928,023 928,023
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 1,080,956 1,080,956
110 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 879,032 879,032
130 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 183,777 183,777
140 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 404,072 404,072
170 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 187,375 187,375
180 US STRATCOM......................................... 529,902 529,902
190 US CYBERCOM......................................... 329,474 329,474
200 US CENTCOM.......................................... 166,024 166,024
210 US SOCOM............................................ 723 723
220 US TRANSCOM......................................... 535 535
918 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 156,800 156,800
Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM................. [156,800]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 33,797,280 902,700 34,699,980

MOBILIZATION
230 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,307,695 1,307,695
240 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 144,417 144,417
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,452,112 0 1,452,112

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
280 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 133,187 133,187
290 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 25,041 25,041
300 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 117,338 117,338
330 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 401,996 401,996
340 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 477,064 477,064
350 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 276,423 276,423
360 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 95,948 95,948
380 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 154,530 154,530
390 EXAMINING........................................... 4,132 4,132
400 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 223,150 223,150
410 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 209,497 209,497
420 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 59,908 59,908
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 2,178,214 0 2,178,214

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,222,456 1,222,456
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
430 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 681,788 681,788
440 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 117,812 117,812
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 953,102 953,102
490 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 358,389 358,389
500 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 1,194,862 1,194,862
510 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 29,594 29,594
540 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 74,959 74,959
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,632,962 0 4,632,962

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 42,060,568 902,700 42,963,268

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,853,437 1,853,437
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 205,369 205,369
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 345,576 345,576
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 120,736 2,800 123,536
Additional demo................................. [2,800]
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 241,239 52,000 293,239
WSS to 91%...................................... [52,000]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 385,922 385,922
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,152,279 54,800 3,207,079

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 71,188 71,188
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 19,429 19,429
090 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 9,386 9,386
100 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 7,512 7,512
110 AUDIOVISUAL......................................... 440 440
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.. 107,955 0 107,955

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 3,260,234 54,800 3,315,034

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 2,619,940 1,600 2,621,540
Restoring O&M associated with buyback of 3 PMAI [1,600]
JSTARS aircraft.................................
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 623,265 623,265
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 748,287 748,287
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 303,792 303,792
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 1,061,759 1,061,759
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 988,333 11,000 999,333
PFAS Transfer................................... [11,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,345,376 12,600 6,357,976

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 45,711 45,711
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 36,535 36,535
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES. 82,246 0 82,246

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 6,427,622 12,600 6,440,222

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 430,215 2,500 432,715
Operational logistics exercise elements......... [2,500]
020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CE2T2........................ 602,186 602,186
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 5,389,250 5,389,250
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,421,651 2,500 6,424,151

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 181,601 181,601
060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 96,565 96,565
070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING.. 370,583 370,583
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 648,749 0 648,749

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 15,645,192 15,645,192
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
080 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 166,131 166,131
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 625,633 625,633
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,465,354 1,465,354
120 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 859,923 859,923
130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 2,106,930 2,106,930
150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 27,403 27,403
160 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 379,275 379,275
170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 207,537 207,537
180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY................. 130,696 130,696
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 754,711 754,711
200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 789,175 63,600 852,775
Additional civilian FTE......................... [18,600]
New mission needs............................... [45,000]
220 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 34,951 34,951
230 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 553,329 553,329
250 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,892,284 50,000 2,942,284
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities [10,000]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent [40,000]
students........................................
260 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 499,817 499,817
280 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 70,035 70,035
290 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 1,519,655 46,000 1,565,655
CDC Health Study (sec. 312)..................... [10,000]
Clearinghouse................................... [1,000]
Defense Environmental International Cooperations [1,000]
(DEIC)..........................................
Defense Fellows Program......................... [10,000]
DOD emerging contaminants....................... [1,000]
DOD environmental resilience.................... [1,000]
DOD Rewards Program Cut......................... [-3,000]
Readiness and Environmental Protection [25,000]
Initiative Increase.............................
300 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 97,787 97,787
ACTIVITIES.........................................
310 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 456,407 456,407
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 29,282,225 159,600 29,441,825

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 36,352,625 162,100 36,514,725

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 14,662 14,662
SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF.. 14,662 0 14,662

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 107,663 107,663
SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC 107,663 0 107,663
AID................................................

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION.......... 335,240 335,240
SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT....... 335,240 0 335,240

DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND
010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................ 400,000 400,000
SUBTOTAL DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND. 400,000 0 400,000

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 203,449 203,449
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY............ 203,449 0 203,449

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 329,253 329,253
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY............ 329,253 0 329,253

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
100 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 296,808 -11,000 285,808
PFAS Transfer................................... [-11,000]
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE....... 296,808 -11,000 285,808

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
120 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 8,926 8,926
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE......... 8,926 0 8,926

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
140 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 212,346 212,346
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED 212,346 0 212,346
SITES..............................................

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................. 1,908,347 -11,000 1,897,347

UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -216,520 -216,520
Foreign Currency Fluctuation.................... [-267,000]
JROTC........................................... [5,480]
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force DSMOA...... [10,000]
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard [15,000]
DSMOA...........................................
Operation and Maintenance, Army DSMOA........... [10,000]
Operation and Maintenance, Navy DSMOA........... [10,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 -216,520 -216,520

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED................................. 0 -216,520 -216,520

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 199,469,636 881,680 200,351,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,179,339 1,179,339
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 25,983 25,983
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 2,189,916 2,189,916
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 188,609 188,609
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 120,787 120,787
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 3,867,286 3,867,286
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 550,068 550,068
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 195,873 195,873
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 109,560 109,560
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 60,807 60,807
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 5,992,222 5,992,222
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM............... 10,000 10,000
160 RESET............................................... 1,036,454 1,036,454
180 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 248,796 248,796
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 98,127 98,127
200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND................................. 2,550 2,550
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 15,876,377 0 15,876,377

MOBILIZATION
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 158,753 158,753
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 158,753 0 158,753

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,074,270 1,074,270
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 712,230 712,230
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 44,168 44,168
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 5,300 5,300
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 38,597 38,597
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 109,019 109,019
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 191,786 191,786
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 2,175,370 0 2,175,370

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 18,210,500 0 18,210,500

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 20,700 20,700
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 700 700
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 20,487 20,487
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 41,887 0 41,887

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 41,887 0 41,887

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 42,519 42,519
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 778 778
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 12,093 12,093
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 708 708
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 28,135 28,135
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 5,908 5,908
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 18,877 18,877
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 956 956
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 109,974 0 109,974

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 755 755
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 755 0 755

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 110,729 0 110,729

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY
090 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 1,522,777 1,522,777
100 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 137,732 137,732
110 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 71,922 71,922
120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 175,846 175,846
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY....................... 1,908,277 0 1,908,277

AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE
130 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 527,554 527,554
140 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 42,984 42,984
150 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 14,554 14,554
160 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 181,922 181,922
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE..................... 767,014 0 767,014

AFGHAN AIR FORCE
170 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 942,279 942,279
180 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 30,350 30,350
190 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 572,310 572,310
200 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 277,191 277,191
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN AIR FORCE........................... 1,822,130 0 1,822,130

AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES
210 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 353,734 353,734
220 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 43,132 43,132
230 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 151,790 151,790
240 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 153,373 153,373
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES............. 702,029 0 702,029

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.............. 5,199,450 0 5,199,450

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 435,507 435,507
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 800 800
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 9,394 9,394
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 193,384 193,384
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 173,053 173,053
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 3,524 3,524
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 60,219 60,219
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 942,960 942,960
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 20,236 20,236
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 1,022,647 1,022,647
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 59,553 59,553
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 16,651 16,651
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 31,118 31,118
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 635,560 635,560
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 4,334 4,334
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 24,800 24,800
240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 355 355
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 493,033 493,033
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 12,780 12,780
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 67,321 67,321
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 211,394 211,394
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 4,418,623 0 4,418,623

MOBILIZATION
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 12,902 12,902
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 165,000 165,000
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 177,902 0 177,902

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 51,138 51,138
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 51,138 0 51,138

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 16,076 16,076
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 4,145 4,145
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 7,503 7,503
580 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 69,297 69,297
610 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 10,912 10,912
650 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 1,559 1,559
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 109,492 0 109,492

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 4,757,155 0 4,757,155

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 734,505 734,505
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 212,691 212,691
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 53,040 53,040
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 23,047 23,047
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,023,283 0 1,023,283

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 30,459 30,459
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 30,459 0 30,459

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 4,650 4,650
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 61,400 61,400
170 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,108 2,108
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 68,158 0 68,158

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 1,121,900 0 1,121,900

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 500 500
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 11,400 11,400
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 13,737 13,737
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 25,637 0 25,637

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 25,637 0 25,637

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 2,550 2,550
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 795 795
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,345 0 3,345

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 3,345 0 3,345

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 166,274 166,274
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,492,580 1,492,580
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 110,237 110,237
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 209,996 209,996
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 92,412 92,412
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 1,289,693 1,289,693
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 2,355,264 2,355,264
080 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,141,718 1,141,718
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 13,537 13,537
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 224,713 224,713
110 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 17,353 17,353
120 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES......... 36,098 36,098
130 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 385 385
140 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 38,966 38,966
170 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 725 725
180 US STRATCOM......................................... 2,056 2,056
190 US CYBERCOM......................................... 35,189 35,189
200 US CENTCOM.......................................... 162,691 162,691
210 US SOCOM............................................ 19,000 19,000
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 7,408,887 0 7,408,887

MOBILIZATION
230 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,287,659 1,287,659
240 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 107,064 107,064
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,394,723 0 1,394,723

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
280 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 300 300
290 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 340 340
330 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 25,327 25,327
340 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 844 844
350 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 1,199 1,199
360 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 1,320 1,320
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 29,330 0 29,330

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 51,108 51,108
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
430 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 154,485 154,485
440 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 13,608 13,608
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 4,814 4,814
490 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 131,123 131,123
500 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 97,471 97,471
540 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 240 240
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 452,849 0 452,849

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 9,285,789 0 9,285,789

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 51,000 51,000
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 9,500 9,500
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 60,500 0 60,500

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 60,500 0 60,500

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 3,560 3,560
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 12,310 12,310
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 15,870 0 15,870

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 15,870 0 15,870

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 28,671 28,671
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 3,733,161 3,733,161
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,761,832 0 3,761,832

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,944,813 1,944,813
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 1,781 1,781
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 21,723 21,723
130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 111,702 111,702
150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 127,023 127,023
170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 14,377 14,377
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 2,208,442 -550,000 1,658,442
Coalition Support Funds......................... [-550,000]
230 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 302,250 302,250
250 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 31,620 31,620
290 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 16,579 16,579
310 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 7,766 7,766
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 4,788,076 -550,000 4,238,076

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 8,549,908 -550,000 7,999,908

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 47,382,670 -550,000 46,832,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 140,689,301 -3,062,080 137,627,221
End strength cut............................... [-993,200]
Foreign Currency Fluctuation................... [-133,000]
JROTC.......................................... 1,220
Military Personnel Underexecution.............. [-1,937,100]
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 140,689,301 -3,062,080 137,627,221

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 7,533,090 7,533,090
SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 7,533,090 7,533,090
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 148,222,391 -3,062,080 145,160,311
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 4,660,661 4,660,661
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 4,660,661 0 4,660,661

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 4,660,661 0 4,660,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 Industrial Operations........................... 59,002 59,002
020 Supply Management--Army......................... 99,763 99,763
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 59,002 0 59,002
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 99,763 0 99,763

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
020 Supplies and Materials.......................... 69,054 69,054
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 69,054 0 69,054

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
020 Supply Chain Management--Def.................... 48,096 48,096
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 48,096 0 48,096

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
010 Working Capital Fund, DECA...................... 1,266,200 1,266,200
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,266,200 0 1,266,200

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 1,542,115 0 1,542,115

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1 Chem Demilitarization--O&M...................... 105,997 105,997
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 105,997 0 105,997

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
2 Chem Demilitarization--RDT&E.................... 886,728 886,728
SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 886,728 0 886,728
EVALUATION.....................................

PROCUREMENT
3 Chem Demilitarization--Proc..................... 1,091 1,091
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 1,091 0 1,091

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....... 993,816 0 993,816

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 547,171 547,171
Defense........................................
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 547,171 0 547,171
ACTIVITIES.....................................

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
020 Drug Demand Reduction Program................... 117,900 117,900
SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.......... 117,900 0 117,900

READINESS COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES
040 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 5,276 5,276
Defense........................................
SUBTOTAL READINESS COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES....... 5,276 0 5,276

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM
030 National Guard Counter-Drug Program............. 117,178 117,178
SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM.... 117,178 0 117,178

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 787,525 0 787,525
DEF............................................

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 Office of the Inspector General................. 327,611 327,611
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 327,611 0 327,611

RDT&E
020 Office of the Inspector General................. 1,602 1,602
SUBTOTAL RDT&E.................................. 1,602 0 1,602

PROCUREMENT
030 Office of the Inspector General................. 60 60
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 60 0 60

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 329,273 0 329,273

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 In-House Care................................... 9,738,569 9,738,569
020 Private Sector Care............................. 15,103,735 15,103,735
030 Consolidated Health Support..................... 2,107,961 2,107,961
040 Information Management.......................... 2,039,878 2,039,878
050 Management Activities........................... 307,629 307,629
060 Education and Training.......................... 756,778 2,500 759,278
Specialized medical pilot program........... [2,500]
070 Base Operations/Communications.................. 2,090,845 2,090,845
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 32,145,395 2,500 32,147,895

RDT&E
080 R&D Research.................................... 11,386 11,386
090 R&D Exploratry Development...................... 75,010 75,010
100 R&D Advanced Development........................ 275,258 275,258
110 R&D Demonstration/Validation.................... 117,529 117,529
120 R&D Engineering Development..................... 151,985 151,985
130 R&D Management and Support...................... 63,755 63,755
140 R&D Capabilities Enhancement.................... 15,714 15,714
SUBTOTAL RDT&E.................................. 710,637 0 710,637

PROCUREMENT
150 PROC Initial Outfitting......................... 33,056 33,056
160 PROC Replacement & Modernization................ 343,424 343,424
180 PROC DoD Healthcare Management System 496,680 496,680
Modernization..................................
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 873,160 0 873,160

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 33,729,192 2,500 33,731,692

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 37,381,921 2,500 37,384,421
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
020 Supply Management--Army......................... 6,600 6,600
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 6,600 0 6,600

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
020 Supplies and Materials.......................... 8,590 8,590
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 8,590 0 8,590

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 15,190 0 15,190

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 153,100 153,100
Defense........................................
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 153,100 0 153,100
ACTIVITIES.....................................

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 153,100 0 153,100
DEF............................................

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 Office of the Inspector General................. 24,692 24,692
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 24,692 0 24,692

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 24,692 0 24,692

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 In-House Care................................... 72,627 72,627
020 Private Sector Care............................. 277,066 277,066
030 Consolidated Health Support..................... 2,375 2,375
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 352,068 0 352,068

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 352,068 0 352,068

COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF)
010 IRAQ............................................ 850,000 850,000
020 SYRIA........................................... 300,000 300,000
030 Other........................................... 250,000 250,000
SUBTOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 1,400,000 0 1,400,000
(CTEF).........................................

TOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......... 1,400,000 0 1,400,000

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 1,945,050 0 1,945,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY
ARMY ALABAMA Anniston Army Depot Weapon Maintenance Shop... 5,200 5,200
ARMY CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Multipurpose Range Complex 29,000 29,000
ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 77,000 77,000
ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Cyber Instructional Fac 99,000 99,000
and Network Ctr.
ARMY GERMANY East Camp Grafenwoehr Mission Training Complex.. 31,000 31,000
ARMY HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control 105,000 105,000
Facility, Incr 4.
ARMY HAWAII Wheeler Army Airfield Rotary wing parking apron. 0 50,000 50,000
ARMY HONDURAS Soto Cano AB Barracks.................. 21,000 21,000
ARMY INDIANA Crane Army Ammunition Railcar Holding Area...... 16,000 16,000
Activity
ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Microgrid and power plant. 0 18,000 18,000
ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 32,000 32,000
ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Knox Digital Air/Ground 26,000 26,000
Integration Range.
ARMY KOREA Camp Tango Command and Control 17,500 17,500
Facility.
ARMY KUWAIT Camp Arifjan Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 44,000 44,000
ARMY NEW JERSEY Picatinny Arsenal Munitions Disassembly 41,000 41,000
Complex.
ARMY NEW MEXICO White Sands Missile Information Systems 40,000 40,000
Range Facility.
ARMY NEW YORK West Point Military Engineering Center........ 95,000 95,000
Reservation
ARMY NEW YORK West Point Military Parking Structure......... 65,000 65,000
Reservation
ARMY NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Dining Facility........... 10,000 10,000
ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks Complex 52,000 52,000
3, Ph2.
ARMY TEXAS Fort Bliss Supply Support Activity... 24,000 24,000
ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood Supply Support Activity... 0 9,600 9,600
ARMY VIRGINIA Arlington National Arlington National 0 30,000 30,000
Cemetery Cemetery Southern
Expansion.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support....... 34,000 34,000
Locations
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 71,068 71,068
Locations
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 72,000 72,000
Locations Construction.
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 5,000 5,000
Locations
SUBTOTAL ARMY 1,011,768 107,600 1,119,368
....................... ......................
NAVY
NAVY ARIZONA Camp Navajo Missile Motor Magazines 0 14,800 14,800
and U&SI.
NAVY BAHAMAS Andros Island AUTEC Austere Quarters.... 31,050 31,050
NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Fleet Maintenance Facility 26,340 26,340
& TOC.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton 62 Area Mess Hall & 0 71,700 71,700
Consolidated Warehouse.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Supply Warehouse SOI-West. 0 16,600 16,600
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Potable Water Distribution 47,230 47,230
Improvements.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton AAV-ACV Maintenance & 49,410 49,410
Warehouse Facility.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Full Motion Trainer 10,670 10,670
Facility.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Electrical Upgrades....... 4,020 4,020
NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado CMV-22B Airfield 77,780 77,780
Improvements.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35 Maintenance Hangar... 112,690 112,690
NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar F-35 Vertical Landing Pads 20,480 20,480
and Taxiway.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar Airfield Security 11,500 11,500
Improvements.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Directed Energy Systems 22,150 22,150
Intergration Lab.
NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego Harbor Drive Switching 48,440 48,440
Station.
NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego Pier 8 Replacement........ 108,100 108,100
NAVY CALIFORNIA San Nicolas Island Missile Assembly Build & 31,010 31,010
High Explosive Mag.
NAVY CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Missile Magazines......... 0 21,800 21,800
NAVY CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Causeway, Boat Channel & 117,830 117,830
Turning Basin.
NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Naval Observatory Master Time Clocks & 115,600 115,600
Operations Facility.
NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Support Facility...... 82,350 82,350
NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Operational Training 29,110 29,110
Facility Addition.
NAVY FLORIDA NAS Whiting Field Air Traffic Control Tower 0 10,000 10,000
(North Field).
NAVY GEORGIA MCLB Albany Welding and Body Repair 0 31,900 31,900
Shop Facility.
NAVY GERMANY Panzer Kaserne MARFOREUR HQ Modernization 43,950 43,950
and Expansion.
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas ACE Gym & Dining.......... 27,910 27,910
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Earth Covered Magazines... 52,270 52,270
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Ordnance Ops.............. 22,020 22,020
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Machine Gun Range......... 141,287 -126,287 15,000
NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Unaccompanied Enlisted 36,170 36,170
Housing.
NAVY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Solid Waste Management 85,000 85,000
Facility.
NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Drydock Waterfront 45,000 45,000
Harbor-Hickam Facility.
NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Corrosion Control Hangar.. 66,100 66,100
NAVY HAWAII Pearl City Water Transmission Line... 78,320 78,320
NAVY JAPAN Kadena AB Tactical Operations Center 9,049 9,049
NAVY MAINE Kittery Extend Portal Crane Rail.. 39,725 39,725
NAVY MAINE Kittery Dry Dock #1 Superflood 109,960 109,960
Basin.
NAVY MISSISSIPPI Naval Construction Expeditionary Combat 0 22,300 22,300
Battalion Center Skills Student Berthing.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio BN Complex, 0 51,300 51,300
Phase 2.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Aircraft Maintenance 133,970 -106,970 27,000
Corps Air Station Hangar.
NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Flightline Utility 106,860 106,860
Corps Air Station Modernization.
NAVY PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Submarine Propulsor 71,050 71,050
Manufacturing Support Fac.
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Cryogenics Facility....... 0 6,300 6,300
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Recycling/Hazardous Waste 9,517 9,517
Facility.
NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Range Improvements & 35,190 35,190
Modernization, Phase 2.
NAVY UTAH Hill AFB D5 Missile Motor Receipt/ 105,520 105,520
Storage Facility.
NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Ships Maintenance Facility 26,120 26,120
NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Ammunition Supply Point 0 13,100 13,100
Upgrade, Phase 2.
NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico TBS Fire Station.......... 21,980 -21,980 0
NAVY WASHINGTON Bangor Pier and Maintenance 88,960 88,960
Facility.
NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Fleet Support Facility.... 19,450 19,450
NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Next Generation Jammer 7,930 7,930
Facility.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 0 25,000 25,000
Locations Construction.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 28,579 28,579
Locations Construction.
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 185,542 185,542
Locations
SUBTOTAL NAVY 2,543,189 29,563 2,572,752
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A School Age Facility. 22,500 22,500
AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A CATM Range.......... 19,000 19,000
AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35 Aircraft Maintenance 6,800 6,800
Unit Admin Facility.
AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35 Conventional 15,500 15,500
Munitions Maintenance Fac.
AIR FORCE ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB AGE Facility.............. 0 15,000 15,000
AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A Squad Ops #6........ 17,000 17,000
AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A ADAL AMU B914 Sq 6.. 23,000 23,000
AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A Student Dormitory II 28,000 28,000
AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A Integrated Trng 34,863 34,863
Center Academics Bldg.
AIR FORCE FLORIDA MacDill AFB KC135 Beddown Add Flight 3,100 3,100
Simulator Training.
AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas Hayman Munitions Storage 9,800 9,800
Igloos MSA 2.
AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR--Cargo Pad with 46,000 46,000
Taxiway Extension.
AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR--Maintenance Support 4,700 4,700
Facility.
AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Child Development Center.. 0 13,000 13,000
AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad 37,000 37,000
and EOD Range.
AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft 154,000 -32,750 121,250
Recap Complex, Inc. 2.
AIR FORCE MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB MIT-Lincoln Laboratory 225,000 -50,000 175,000
(West Lab CSL/MIF).
AIR FORCE NEBRASKA Offutt AFB Parking Lot, USSTRATCOM... 9,500 9,500
AIR FORCE NEVADA Creech AFB MQ-9 CPIP Operations & 28,000 28,000
Command Center Fac..
AIR FORCE NEVADA Creech AFB MQ-9 CPIP GCS Operations 31,000 31,000
Facility.
AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB CRH Simulator............. 5,900 5,900
AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB MQ-9 FTU Ops Facility..... 85,000 85,000
AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Wyoming Gate Upgrade for 0 7,000 7,000
Anti-terrorism Compliance.
AIR FORCE NEW YORK Rome Lab Anti-Terrorism Perimeter 0 14,200 14,200
Security / Entry Control
Point.
AIR FORCE NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/ 66,000 66,000
AMU and Alert Fac.
AIR FORCE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB ADAL Intelligence 116,100 116,100
Production Complex
(NASIC).
AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU/FTC Simulator 12,000 12,000
Facility Ph 3.
AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Depot Maintenance 81,000 81,000
Hangar.
AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Depot Fuel 85,000 85,000
Maintenance Hangar.
AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid Personnel Deployment 40,000 40,000
Processing Facility.
AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid Flightline Support 30,400 30,400
Facilities.
AIR FORCE SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB CPIP MQ-9 MCE GROUP....... 53,000 53,000
AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio- BMT Recruit Dormitory 6... 25,000 25,000
Lackland
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Fuel System 16,880 16,880
Lakenheath Maintenance Dock 2 Bay.
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Parking Apron....... 27,431 27,431
Lakenheath
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A AGE Facility........ 12,449 12,449
Lakenheath
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A ADAL Parts Store.... 13,926 13,926
Lakenheath
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A 6 Bay Hangar........ 39,036 39,036
Lakenheath
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Dorm................ 29,541 29,541
Lakenheath
AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A ADAL Conventional 9,204 9,204
Lakenheath Munitions MX.
AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB Composite Aircraft Antenna 0 26,000 26,000
Calibration Fac.
AIR FORCE WASHINGTON White Bluff ADAL JPRA C2 Mission 0 14,000 14,000
Support Facility.
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location TACMOR--Utilities and 18,000 18,000
Infrastructure Support.
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 20,000 20,000
Locations
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 195,577 195,577
Locations
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 11,000 11,000
Locations
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Military 38,500 38,500
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE 1,725,707 26,450 1,752,157
....................... ......................
DEFENSE-WIDE
DEFENSE-WIDE ALABAMA Anniston Army Depot Install microgrid......... 0 20,000 20,000
DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Clear AFS Long Range Discrim Radar 174,000 -44,000 130,000
Sys Complex Ph2.
DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Fort Greely Missile Field #1 Expansion 8,000 8,000
DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Joint Base Elmendorf- Operations Facility 14,000 14,000
Richardson Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE ARKANSAS Little Rock AFB Hydrant Fuel System 14,000 14,000
Alterations.
DEFENSE-WIDE BELGIUM U.S. Army Garrison Europe West District 14,305 14,305
Benelux (Chievres) Superintendent's Office.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF EOD Facility--West.... 3,547 3,547
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF Human Performance 9,049 9,049
Training Center-West.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF NSWG-1 Operations 25,172 25,172
Support Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Close Quarters Combat 12,768 12,768
Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF ATC Applied 14,819 14,819
Instruction Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF ATC Training Facility. 18,329 18,329
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Defense Distribution Main Access Control Point 18,800 18,800
Depot-Tracy Upgrades.
DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA NB Ventura County SNI Energy Storage System. 0 6,530 6,530
DEFENSE-WIDE COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Human Performance 15,297 15,297
Training Center.
DEFENSE-WIDE COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Mountaineering 9,000 9,000
Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Battalion Complex, PH2.... 49,222 49,222
DEFENSE-WIDE DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonnier ECIP-install PV ground 0 3,750 3,750
array.
DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Baumholder SOF Joint Parachute 11,504 11,504
Rigging Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Kaiserslautern AB Kaiserslautern Middle 99,955 99,955
School.
DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Medical Center Replacement 319,589 319,589
Barracks Inc. 8.
DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Weisbaden Clay Kaserne Elementary 56,048 56,048
School.
DEFENSE-WIDE GREECE NSA Souda Bay Energy management control 0 2,230 2,230
systems (EMCS).
DEFENSE-WIDE GUAM Naval Base Guam P-691 NBG 74 facilities 0 4,634 4,634
automated controls.
DEFENSE-WIDE GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Working Dog Treatment 9,080 9,080
Facility Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE HAWAII Bellows AFB Expand PV and provide 0 2,944 2,944
energy resilience to fire
crash rescue.
DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Camp McTureous Bechtel Elementary School. 94,851 94,851
DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Iwakuni Fuel Pier................. 33,200 33,200
DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Truck Unload Facilities... 21,400 21,400
DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Yokosuka Kinnick High School....... 170,386 -130,386 40,000
DEFENSE-WIDE KANSAS Salina Training Center PV/Water Conservation & 0 3,500 3,500
Energy Resilience.
DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Ft Campbell Middle School. 62,634 62,634
DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Logistics Support 5,435 5,435
Operations Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Air/Ground Integ. 9,091 9,091
Urban Live Fire Range.
DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Multi-Use Helicopter 5,138 5,138
Training Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE LOUISIANA JRB NAS New Orleans Distribution Switchgear... 0 5,340 5,340
DEFENSE-WIDE MAINE Kittery Consolidated Warehouse 11,600 11,600
Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 218,000 -26,400 191,600
#2 Inc 4.
DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 99,000 99,000
#3 Inc 1.
DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade Mission Support Operations 30,000 30,000
Warehouse Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) 213,600 -163,600 50,000
Complex Phase 1 Inc. 2.
DEFENSE-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) 110,000 110,000
Complex Phase 2 Inc. 1.
DEFENSE-WIDE NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Hot Cargo Hydrant System 10,200 10,200
Lakehurst Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Replace Training Maze 12,109 12,109
and Tower.
DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF SERE Resistance 20,257 20,257
Training Lab. Complex.
DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA New River Amb Care Center/Dental 32,580 32,580
Clinic Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE OKLAHOMA McAlester Bulk Diesel System 7,000 7,000
Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Electrical hardening and 0 22,402 22,402
black start CHP system.
DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Camp Mabry Install microgrid......... 0 5,500 5,500
DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio- Energy Aerospace 10,200 10,200
Lackland Operations Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Red River Army Depot General Purpose Warehouse. 71,500 71,500
DEFENSE-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Ambulatory Care Center 10,000 -10,000 0
Addition/Alteration.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Dam Neck SOF Magazines............. 8,959 8,959
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort A.P. Hill Training Campus........... 11,734 11,734
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Human Performance Training 6,127 6,127
Center.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Humphreys Engineer Maintenance and Supply 20,257 20,257
Center Facility.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Fuel Facilities 6,900 6,900
Eustis Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Ground Vehicle Fueling 5,800 5,800
Eustis Facility Replacement.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA NAS Oceana Super Flight Line 0 2,520 2,520
Electrical Distribtion
System (FLEDS).
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon North Village VACP & 12,200 12,200
Fencing.
DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Exterior Infrastruc. & 23,650 23,650
Security Improvements.
DEFENSE-WIDE WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Refueling Facility........ 26,200 26,200
McChord
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design--ERCIP 0 5,000 5,000
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 55,925 55,925
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 496 496
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 10,000 10,000
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 14,184 14,184
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 13,642 13,642
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,000 5,000
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Resilience and 150,000 150,000
Locations Conserv. Invest. Prog..
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction.. 10,000 10,000
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 14,300 14,300
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERCIP Design.............. 10,000 10,000
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 12,479 12,479
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 2,036 2,036
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning & Design......... 42,705 42,705
Locations
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 17,366 17,366
Locations Construction.
DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 55,699 55,699
Locations
SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE 2,693,324 -290,036 2,403,288
....................... ......................
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ALASKA Joint Base Elmendorf- United States Property & 27,000 27,000
Richardson Fiscal Office.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ILLINOIS Marseilles Automated Record Fire 5,000 5,000
Range.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MONTANA Malta National Guard Readiness 15,000 15,000
Center.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD NEVADA North Las Vegas National Guard Readiness 32,000 32,000
Center.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD NEW HAMPSHIRE Pembroke National Guard Readiness 12,000 12,000
Center.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD NORTH DAKOTA Fargo National Guard Readiness 32,000 32,000
Center.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OHIO Camp Ravenna Automated Multipurpose 7,400 7,400
Machine Gun Range.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OKLAHOMA Lexington Aircraft vehicle storage 0 11,000 11,000
building.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OREGON Boardman Tactical unmanned aerial 0 11,000 11,000
vehicle hangar.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD SOUTH DAKOTA Rapid City National Guard Readiness 15,000 15,000
Center.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD TEXAS Houston Unheated vehicle storage 0 15,000 15,000
(aircraft).
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD VIRGINIA Sandston Army aviation support 0 89,000 89,000
facility.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 18,100 18,100
Locations Construction.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 16,622 16,622
Locations
SUBTOTAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 180,122 126,000 306,122
....................... ......................
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
AIR NATIONAL GUARD CALIFORNIA Channel Islands ANGS Construct C-130J Flight 8,000 8,000
Simulator Facility.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Construct Addition to F-22 17,000 17,000
Harbor-Hickam LO/CRF B3408.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD ILLINOIS Gen. Wayne A. Downing Construct New Fire Crash/ 9,000 9,000
Peoria International Rescue Station.
Airport
AIR NATIONAL GUARD LOUISIANA JRB NAS New Orleans NORTHCOM--Construct Alert 15,000 15,000
Apron.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD NEW YORK Francis S. Gabreski Security Forces/ 20,000 20,000
Airport Comm.Training Facility.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Replace Operations 8,000 8,000
Training/Dining Hall.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD PUERTO RICO Luis Munoz Marin Hurricane Maria-- 0 15,000 15,000
International Communications Facility.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD PUERTO RICO Luis Munoz Marin Hurricane Maria-- 0 35,000 35,000
International Airport Maintenance Hangar.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Construct Cyber Ops 10,000 10,000
Eustis Facility.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 4,000 4,000
Locations
AIR NATIONAL GUARD WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 23,626 23,626
Locations Construction.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 18,500 18,500
Locations
SUBTOTAL AIR NATIONAL GUARD 129,126 54,000 183,126
....................... ......................
ARMY RESERVE
ARMY RESERVE CALIFORNIA Barstow ECS Modified TEMF / 34,000 34,000
Warehouse.
ARMY RESERVE WISCONSIN Fort McCoy Transient Training 23,000 23,000
Barracks.
ARMY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,064 2,064
Locations Construction.
ARMY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 5,855 5,855
Locations
SUBTOTAL ARMY RESERVE 64,919 0 64,919
....................... ......................
NAVY RESERVE
NAVY RESERVE CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Reserve Training Center... 21,740 21,740
NAVY RESERVE GEORGIA Benning Reserve Training Center... 13,630 13,630
NAVY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
NAVY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,695 4,695
Locations
SUBTOTAL NAVY RESERVE 43,065 0 43,065
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE RESERVE
AIR FORCE RESERVE INDIANA Grissom ARB Aerial Port Facility...... 0 9,400 9,400
AIR FORCE RESERVE INDIANA Grissom ARB Add/Alter Aircraft 12,100 12,100
Maintenance Hangar.
AIR FORCE RESERVE MINNESOTA Minneapolis-St Paul Small Arms Range.......... 9,000 9,000
IAP
AIR FORCE RESERVE MISSISSIPPI Keesler AFB Aeromedical Staging 4,550 4,550
Squadron Facility.
AIR FORCE RESERVE NEW YORK Niagara Falls IAP Physical Fitness Center... 14,000 14,000
AIR FORCE RESERVE TEXAS Fort Worth Munitions Training/Admin 3,100 3,100
Facility.
AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 5,000 5,000
Locations
AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,055 4,055
Locations
AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,358 3,358
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE RESERVE 50,163 14,400 64,563
....................... ......................
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security NATO Security Investment 171,064 171,064
PROGRAM Investment Program Program.
SUBTOTAL NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 171,064 0 171,064
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 8,612,447 67,977 8,680,424
....................... ......................
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY GERMANY Baumholder Family Housing 32,000 32,000
Improvements.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY ITALY Vicenza Family Housing New 95,134 95,134
Construction.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New 85,000 85,000
Construction Incr 3.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing Replacement 68,000 68,000
Construction.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY PUERTO RICO Fort Buchanan Family Housing Replacement 26,000 26,000
Construction.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY WISCONSIN Fort McCoy Family Housing New 6,200 6,200
Construction.
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D...... 18,326 18,326
Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, ARMY 330,660 0 330,660
....................... ......................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 36,302 36,302
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 10,502 10,502
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 15,842 15,842
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 408 408
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 75,530 75,530
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 57,872 57,872
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 161,252 161,252
ARMY Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privitization 18,801 18,801
ARMY Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY 376,509 0 376,509
....................... ......................
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen Housing 83,441 83,441
MARINE CORPS PH III.
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements, Washington 16,638 16,638
MARINE CORPS Locations DC.
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide P&D Washington DC......... 4,502 4,502
MARINE CORPS Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 104,581 0 104,581
....................... ......................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 60,252 60,252
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 16,395 16,395
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 50,870 50,870
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 148 148
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 16,261 16,261
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 62,515 62,515
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 86,328 86,328
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization 21,767 21,767
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 314,536 0 314,536
....................... ......................
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Construction Improvements. 75,247 75,247
Locations
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 3,199 3,199
Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE 78,446 0 78,446
....................... ......................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization..... 22,205 22,205
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 48,566 48,566
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 54,423 54,423
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 13,669 13,669
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 30,645 30,645
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 2,171 2,171
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 15,832 15,832
AIR FORCE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 129,763 129,763
AIR FORCE Locations
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 317,274 0 317,274
....................... ......................
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 4,100 4,100
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 416 416
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 106 106
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 13,046 13,046
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 121 121
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 643 643
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 38,232 38,232
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 01 01
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 02 02
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 09 09
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 1,542 1,542
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 155 155
DEFENSE-WIDE Locations
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 58,373 0 58,373
....................... ......................
IMPROVEMENT FUND
IMPROVEMENT FUND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Administrative Expenses-- 1,653 1,653
Locations FHIF.
SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,653 0 1,653
....................... ......................
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unaccompanied Housing Administrative Expenses-- 600 600
Improvement Fund UHIF.
SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND 600 0 600
....................... ......................
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING 1,582,632 1,582,632
....................... ......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY
ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 62,796 62,796
Closure, Army Closure.
....................... ......................
NAVY
NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Base Realignment & Closure 151,839 151,839
Locations
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities--Air 52,903 52,903
Locations Force.
....................... ......................
TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 267,538 267,538
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC 10,462,617 67,977 10,530,594
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 136,090 0 136,090

Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 11,017,078 0 11,017,078
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,862,825 0 1,862,825
Naval reactors.................................... 1,788,618 0 1,788,618
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 422,529 0 422,529
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 15,091,050 0 15,091,050

Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,630,217 0 5,630,217
Other defense activities.......................... 853,300 0 853,300
Defense nuclear waste disposal.................... 30,000 -30,000 0
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,513,517 -30,000 6,483,517
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 21,604,567 -30,000 21,574,567
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 21,740,657 -30,000 21,710,657

Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 136,090 136,090
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 136,090 0 136,090

Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs and major alterations
B61 Life extension program.......................... 794,049 794,049
W76 Life extension program.......................... 113,888 -113,888 0
Split into W76-1 and W76-2 lines................. [-113,888]
W76-1 Life extension program........................ 0 48,888 48,888
Complete W76-1 life extension.................... [48,888]
W76-2 Warhead modification program.................. 0 65,000 65,000
NPR Implementation............................... [65,000]
W88 Alt 370......................................... 304,285 304,285
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 654,766 654,766
IW-1................................................ 53,000 53,000
Total, Life extension programs and major alterations.. 1,919,988 0 1,919,988

Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 64,547 64,547
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 94,300 94,300
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 81,329 81,329
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 80,204 80,204
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 35,082 35,082
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 83,107 83,107
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 180,913 180,913
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 619,482 0 619,482

Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 56,000 56,000

Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 512,916 512,916
Research and development support.................... 38,129 38,129
R&D certification and safety........................ 216,582 216,582
Management, technology, and production.............. 300,736 300,736
Total, Stockpile services............................. 1,068,363 0 1,068,363

Strategic materials
Uranium sustainment................................. 87,182 87,182
Plutonium sustainment............................... 361,282 361,282
Tritium sustainment................................. 205,275 205,275
Lithium sustainment................................. 29,135 29,135
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 100,704 100,704
Strategic materials sustainment..................... 218,794 218,794
Total, Strategic materials............................ 1,002,372 0 1,002,372
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 4,666,205 0 4,666,205

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 57,710 57,710
Primary assessment technologies..................... 95,057 95,057
Dynamic materials properties........................ 131,000 131,000
Advanced radiography................................ 32,544 32,544
Secondary assessment technologies................... 77,553 77,553
Academic alliances and partnerships................. 53,364 53,364
Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments... 117,632 117,632
Total, Science........................................ 564,860 0 564,860

Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 43,226 43,226
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 27,536 27,536
Nuclear survivability............................... 48,230 48,230
Enhanced surveillance............................... 58,375 58,375
Stockpile Responsiveness............................ 34,000 34,000
Total, Engineering ................................... 211,367 0 211,367

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 22,434 22,434
Support of other stockpile programs................. 17,397 17,397
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 51,453 51,453
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 8,310 8,310
Facility operations and target production........... 319,333 319,333
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 418,927 0 418,927

Advanced simulation and computing
Advanced simulation and computing................... 656,401 656,401
Construction:
18-D-670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling 24,000 24,000
Equipment, LANL..................................
18-D-620, Exascale Computing Facility 23,000 23,000
Modernization Project, LLNL......................
Total, Construction................................. 47,000 0 47,000
Total, Advanced simulation and computing.............. 703,401 0 703,401

Advanced manufacturing
Additive manufacturing.............................. 17,447 17,447
Component manufacturing development................. 48,477 48,477
Process technology development...................... 30,914 30,914
Total, Advanced manufacturing......................... 96,838 0 96,838
Total, RDT&E............................................ 1,995,393 0 1,995,393

Infrastructure and operations
Operations of facilities.............................. 891,000 891,000
Safety and environmental operations................... 115,000 115,000
Maintenance and repair of facilities.................. 365,000 365,000
Recapitalization:
Infrastructure and safety........................... 431,631 431,631
Capability based investments........................ 109,057 109,057
Total, Recapitalization............................... 540,688 0 540,688

Program increase to address high-priority deferred
maintenance

Construction:
19-D-670, 138kV Power Transmission System 6,000 6,000
Replacement, NNSS..................................
19-D-660, Lithium Production Capability, Y-12....... 19,000 19,000
18-D-650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS........ 27,000 27,000
17-D-640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS.... 53,000 53,000
16-D-515, Albuquerque complex project............... 47,953 47,953
06-D-141 Uranium processing facility Y-12, Oak 703,000 703,000
Ridge, TN..........................................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy research facility 235,095 235,095
replacement project, LANL..........................
Total, Construction................................... 1,091,048 0 1,091,048
Total, Infrastructure and operations.................... 3,002,736 0 3,002,736

Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 176,617 176,617
Program direction..................................... 102,022 102,022
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 278,639 0 278,639

Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 690,638 690,638
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 690,638 0 690,638

Information technology and cybersecurity................ 221,175 221,175

Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 162,292 162,292
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 11,017,078 0 11,017,078

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Global material security
International nuclear security...................... 46,339 46,339
Domestic radiological security...................... 90,764 90,764
International radiological security................. 59,576 59,576
Nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence.......... 140,429 140,429
Total, Global material security....................... 337,108 0 337,108

Material management and minimization
HEU reactor conversion.............................. 98,300 98,300
Nuclear material removal............................ 32,925 32,925
Material disposition................................ 200,869 200,869
Total, Material management & minimization............. 332,094 0 332,094

Nonproliferation and arms control..................... 129,703 129,703
Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D................ 456,095 456,095

Nonproliferation Construction:
18-D-150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project...... 59,000 59,000
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 220,000 220,000
Facility, SRS......................................
Total, Nonproliferation construction.................. 279,000 0 279,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,534,000 0 1,534,000

Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 28,640 28,640
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 319,185 319,185
Use of prior year balances.............................. -19,000 -19,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,862,825 0 1,862,825

Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 514,951 514,951
Columbia-Class reactor systems development.............. 138,000 138,000
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 250,000 250,000
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 525,764 525,764
Construction:........................................... 0
19-D-930, KS Overhead Piping.......................... 10,994 10,994
17-D-911, BL Fire System Upgrade...................... 13,200 13,200
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 287,000 287,000
NRF..................................................
Total, Construction..................................... 311,194 0 311,194
Program direction....................................... 48,709 48,709
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,788,618 0 1,788,618

Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 422,529 422,529
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 422,529 0 422,529

Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,889 4,889

Richland:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 89,577 89,577
Central plateau remediation........................... 562,473 562,473
Richland community and regulatory support............. 5,121 5,121
Construction:
18-D-404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage..... 1,000 1,000
Total, Construction................................... 1,000 0 1,000
Total, Hanford site..................................... 658,171 0 658,171

Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment Immobilization Plant Commissioning.... 15,000 15,000
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition... 677,460 677,460
Construction:
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP 56,053 56,053
01-D-416 A-D WTP Subprojects A-D................. 675,000 675,000
01-D-416 E--Pretreatment Facility................ 15,000 15,000
Total, Construction................................... 746,053 0 746,053
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,438,513 0 1,438,513

Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and disposition--2012............... 17,000 17,000
Solid waste stabilization and disposition............. 148,387 148,387
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 137,739 137,739
disposition..........................................
Soil and water remediation--2035...................... 42,900 42,900
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,200 3,200
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 349,226 0 349,226

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,704 1,704
Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research 15,000 15,000
Unit.................................................
Nevada................................................ 60,136 60,136
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,600 2,600
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 191,629 191,629
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 271,069 0 271,069

Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR-0041--D&D--Y-12.................................. 30,214 30,214
OR-0042--D&D--ORNL.................................. 60,007 60,007
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 90,221 0 90,221

U233 Disposition Program.............................. 45,000 45,000

OR cleanup and waste disposition
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 67,000 67,000
Construction:
17-D-401 On-site waste disposal facility.......... 5,000 5,000
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 11,274 11,274
Total, Construction................................. 16,274 0 16,274
Total, OR cleanup and waste disposition............... 83,274 0 83,274

OR community & regulatory support..................... 4,711 4,711
OR technology development and deployment.............. 3,000 3,000
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 226,206 0 226,206

Savannah River Sites:
Nuclear Material Management........................... 351,331 351,331

Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Cleanup............................... 166,105 166,105
Construction:
18-D-402, Emergency Operations Center............. 1,259 1,259
Total, Environmental Cleanup.......................... 167,364 0 167,364

SR community and regulatory support................... 4,749 4,749
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 805,686 805,686
disposition........................................
Construction:
18-D-401, SDU #8/9................................ 37,450 37,450
17-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #7.............. 41,243 41,243
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 65,000 65,000
River Site.......................................
Total, Construction................................. 143,693 0 143,693
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,472,823 0 1,472,823

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Operations and maintenance............................ 220,000 220,000
Central characterization project...................... 19,500 19,500
Critical Infrastructure Repair/Replacement............ 46,695 46,695
Transportation........................................ 25,500 25,500
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation 84,212 84,212
system, WIPP.......................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP........................ 1,000 1,000
Total, Construction................................... 85,212 0 85,212
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 396,907 0 396,907

Program direction....................................... 300,000 300,000
Program support......................................... 6,979 6,979
Minority Serving Institution Partnership................ 6,000 6,000
Safeguards and Security
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 14,023 14,023
Paducah............................................... 15,577 15,577
Portsmouth............................................ 15,078 15,078
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 86,686 86,686
Savannah River Site................................... 183,357 183,357
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 6,580 6,580
West Valley........................................... 3,133 3,133
Total, Safeguards and Security.......................... 324,434 0 324,434

Technology development.................................. 25,000 25,000
HQEF-0040--Excess Facilities............................ 150,000 150,000
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,630,217 0 5,630,217

Other Defense Activities
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 135,194 135,194
Program direction..................................... 70,653 70,653
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 205,847 0 205,847

Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 52,702 52,702
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 76,770 0 76,770

Specialized security activities......................... 254,378 254,378
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 140,575 140,575
Program direction..................................... 18,302 18,302
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 158,877 0 158,877

Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 48,484 48,484
Chief information officer............................. 96,793 96,793
Project management oversight and Assessments.......... 8,412 8,412
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 153,689 0 153,689

Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,739 5,739
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 855,300 0 855,300
Rescission of prior year balances (OHA)................. -2,000 -2,000
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 853,300 0 853,300

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Yucca mountain and interim storage...................... 30,000 -30,000 0
Program cut........................................... [-30,000]
Total, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal..................... 30,000 -30,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative Requirements

Departmental Recommendations

Six legislative proposals on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 were submitted as
executive communications to the President of the Senate by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the
committee. Information on these executive communications
appears below. These executive communications are available for
review at the committee.
Executive Communication No. EC-4563
Dated March 14, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 14,
2018
Executive Communication No. EC-4621
Dated March 20, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 20,
2018
Executive Communication No. EC-4658
Dated April 10, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10,
2018
Executive Communication No. EC-4784
Dated April 11, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 11,
2018
Executive Communication No. EC-4926
Dated April 18, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 18,
2018
Executive Communication No. EC-5213
Dated May 21, 2018
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 21, 2018

Committee Action

The committee vote to report the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 passed by roll
call vote, 25-2, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan,
Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich,
and Peters. Opposed: Senators Gillibrand and Warren.
The other 17 roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the full
committee markup are as follows:
1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 in closed
session because of classified and proprietary information
expected to be discussed.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 18-7-2
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Sasse, Scott, Reed,
Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Kaine, Warren, and Peters
No Instruction: Senators Cruz and Graham
2. MOTION: To improve reimbursement by the Department of
Defense of entities carrying out state vaccination programs in
connection with vaccines provided to TRICARE covered
beneficiaries.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott
3. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
Department of Defense from reducing per diem rates based on the
duration of a temporary duty assignment or civilian travel.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Rounds, Perdue, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, and Reed
4. MOTION: To include a provision that would establish
White Sands National Park, abolish White Sands National
Monument, and direct a land exchange of specific lands between
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 22-5
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan,
Perdue, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, and Cruz
5. MOTION: To include a provision that would prevent the
obligation or expenditure of funds related to deployment of a
low-yield nuclear warhead for a submarine-launched ballistic
missile pending submission of a report from the Secretary of
Defense related to cost, schedule, and program implications of
the development of the W76-2 warhead.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11-16
In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
Scott, Nelson, and McCaskill
6. MOTION: To include a provision that would modify the
requirement in section 3116(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 for specific
authorization by Congress before commencing certain stages of
development of a low-yield nuclear weapon.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
and Scott
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
7. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to pursue a strategy with respect to
national security launch that includes reusable launch
vehicles.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-10
In favor: Senators McCain, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Reed,
Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Sasse, and Scott
8. MOTION: To strike a provision that repealed certain
energy source-specific requirements.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-5-3
In favor: Senators Fischer, Ernst, Perdue, Graham, Sasse,
Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren,
and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Cotton, and Cruz
No Instruction: Senators Rounds, Tillis, and Sullivan
9. MOTION: To repeal the authority to transfer certain
veterans memorial objects to foreign governments without
specific authorization in law.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-15
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott
Opposed: Senators McCain, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono,
Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
10. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the
temporary transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United
States for medical treatment that is not available at
Guantanamo.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott
11. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the
Missile Defense Agency to commence a space-based intercept
program notwithstanding the outcome of the Missile Defense
Review.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-11
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
Scott, Donnelly, and King
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and
Peters
12. MOTION: To place conditions on future participation of
the People's Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific naval
exercise.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
and Scott
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
13. MOTION: To include a provision that would provide
authority to procure up to six polar-class heavy icebreakers.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-10
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Perdue,
Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Donnelly, Hirono, King, Heinrich, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Tillis,
Reed, McCaskill, Blumenthal, Kaine, and Warren
14. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State and in consultation with the Administrator of the U.S.
Agency for International Development and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, to provide support for the
stabilization activities of other Federal agencies.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 21-6
In favor: Senators Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz,
Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Cotton, Ernst,
and Tillis
15. MOTION: To include report language that directs the
Department of Defense to implement the recommendations listed
in the Government Accountability Office Report 18-206.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-14
In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
and Scott
16. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
use of funds for the exhibition or parade of military forces
and hardware for review by the President to demonstrate
military force outside of authorized military operations or
activities on or after January 1, 2019.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-15
In favor: Senators Ernst, Reed, Nelson, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren,
and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott,
McCaskill, and Donnelly
17. MOTION: To include a provision that would waive the
requirement that recreational vessels over 300 gross tons be
inspected as if they were commercial vessels and require the
Coast Guard to establish a large recreational vessel code to
provide safety and construction standards for this category of
vessels.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-17
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Sullivan, Cruz, Graham, Scott, and Nelson
Opposed: Senators McCain, Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Sasse,
Reed, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the
legislation.

Regulatory Impact

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2019.

Changes in Existing Law

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.

[all]