1 

" ! SENATE 116TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

116–48 

Calendar No. 114 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 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 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 11, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

36–532 

" ! SENATE 116TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2019

116–48 

Calendar No. 114 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 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 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 11, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

RICK SCOTT, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

JOHN BONSELL, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790 

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

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

Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4) ................................................................... 5 

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority Implication .. 5 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 7 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 7 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 7 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 7 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Sense of Senate on Army’s approach to capability drops 1 and 2 

of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army program (sec. 

111) ......................................................................................................... 7 

Authority of the Secretary of the Army to waive certain limitations 

related to Distributed Common Ground System-Army Increment 

1 (sec. 112) .............................................................................................. 7 

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

Modification of prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port 

waterborne security barriers (sec. 121) ................................................ 7 

Capabilities based assessment for naval vessels that carry fixedwing aircraft (sec. 122) .......................................................................... 8 

Ford-class aircraft carrier cost limitation baselines (sec. 123) .............. 8 

Design and construction of amphibious transport dock designated 

LPD–31 (sec. 124) .................................................................................. 9 

LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program (sec. 125) ......... 9 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral Combat Ship 

(sec. 126) ................................................................................................. 9 

Limitation on the next new class of Navy large surface combatants 

(sec. 127) ................................................................................................. 10 

Refueling and complex overhauls of the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and 

U.S.S. Harry S. Truman (sec. 128) ....................................................... 10 

Report on carrier wing composition (sec. 129) ........................................ 11 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 12 

Requirement to align Air Force fighter force structure with National 

Defense Strategy and reports (sec. 141) .............................................. 12 

Requirement to establish the use of an Agile DevOps software development solution as an alternative for Joint Strike Fighter Autonomic Logistics Information System (sec. 142) ................................... 12 

Report on feasibility of multiyear contract for procurement of 

JASSM–ER missiles (sec. 143) ............................................................. 12 

Air Force aggressor squadron modernization (sec. 144) ........................ 13 

Air Force plan for the Combat Rescue Helicopter fielding (sec. 145) ... 13 

Military type certification for AT–6 and A–29 light attack experimentation aircraft (sec. 146) ........................................................................ 13 

Subtitle E—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ........................ 13 

Limitation on availability of funds for communication systems lacking certain resiliency features (sec. 151) .............................................. 13 

F–35 sustainment cost (sec. 152) ............................................................. 13 

Economic order quantity contracting authority for F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter program (sec. 153) .................................................................... 14 

Repeal of tactical unmanned vehicle common data link requirement 

(sec. 154) ................................................................................................. 14 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 14 

Army ........................................................................................................... 14 

Utility fixed wing aircraft .................................................................. 14 

Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build .............................................. 14 

UH–60M Blackhawk .......................................................................... 15 

UH–60V Conversion ........................................................................... 15 

Interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 ............... 15 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army procurement ............. 16 

Stryker lethality ................................................................................. 16 

Bradley program ................................................................................ 16 

Abrams upgrade program .................................................................. 16 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle .............................................................. 17 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle .............................................................. 17 

Q53 extended range radar ................................................................. 17 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army ................................ 18 

C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence Operations Center Europe Analytic Center ............................................................ 18 

Army contract writing system ........................................................... 18 

Robotics and Applique Systems ........................................................ 18 

NAVY ......................................................................................................... 18 

F–35C .................................................................................................. 18 

F–35B .................................................................................................. 19 

F–5 aircraft procurement .................................................................. 19 

F–35B Spares ..................................................................................... 19 

F–35C Spares ..................................................................................... 19 

F–35B Engine ..................................................................................... 20 

Tomahawk .......................................................................................... 20 

LCS Over-the-Horizon missile .......................................................... 20 

MK–48 torpedo ................................................................................... 20 

Columbia-class submarine advance procurement ........................... 21 

Carrier replacement program ........................................................... 21 

Virginia-class submarine program ................................................... 21 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement .............................. 22 

Refueling and complex overhauls of aircraft carriers ..................... 22 

Refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement .................. 23 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers .......................................................... 23 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement ...................... 23 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship .............................................. 23 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement ......... 24 

LHA replacement amphibious assault ship ..................................... 24 

Outfitting ............................................................................................ 24 

Service craft ........................................................................................ 25 

Expeditionary Fast Transport (T–EPF 14) conversion ................... 25 

Ship to shore connector advance procurement ................................ 25 

Hull, mechanical, and electrical upgrades for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyers ........................................................................................ 25 

Expeditionary mine countermeasures .............................................. 26 

Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission modules ..... 26 

Knifefish .............................................................................................. 26 

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program ........................ 26 

Ship’s signal exploitation equipment expansion .............................. 27 

Next Generation Surface Search Radar ........................................... 27 

Sonobuoys ........................................................................................... 27 

Electronic Procurement System ........................................................ 27 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 27 

F–35A .................................................................................................. 27 

F–35 advanced procurement ............................................................. 28 

F–15X .................................................................................................. 28 

KC–46 .................................................................................................. 28 

F–15 ADCP ......................................................................................... 28 

F–15 IFF modernization .................................................................... 29 

F–15 Longerons .................................................................................. 29 

F–15 Radar ......................................................................................... 29 

F–16 modernization ........................................................................... 29 

F–15C EPAWSS ................................................................................. 30 

Command and control sustainability ................................................ 30 

F–35A Spares ..................................................................................... 30 

Page

V 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Air Force—Continued 

KC–46 Spares ..................................................................................... 30 

RQ–4 spare parts ............................................................................... 31 

Minuteman III Modifications ............................................................ 31 

Air-Launched Cruise Missile ............................................................. 31 

F–35 training and range modernization .......................................... 31 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System ............................ 31 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 32 

Sharkseer transfer ............................................................................. 32 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency 

procurement .................................................................................... 32 

Sharkseer transfer ............................................................................. 32 

Radio Frequency Countermeasure System ...................................... 32 

Transfer OCO to Base ....................................................................... 33 

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 33 

A–10 modernization ........................................................................... 33 

Acquisition strategy for LHA–9 and LHA–10 .................................. 33 

Acquisition strategy for LPD Flight II-class ships .......................... 34 

Active Protection System for Stryker ............................................... 34 

Adaptive Threat Force ....................................................................... 34 

Advanced Helicopter Training System ............................................. 35 

Advanced survivability modeling capability for air-launched 

weapons ........................................................................................... 35 

Aerospace ground equipment for B–52 Stratofortress .................... 36 

Air Force Active Association ............................................................. 36 

Air Force Future ISR Integration Strategy ..................................... 36 

Air Force ISR SIGINT data integration ........................................... 37 

Army rotary wing munitions capabilities, capability gaps, and 

solutions .......................................................................................... 38 

ATACMS Requirement ...................................................................... 38 

Bomber roadmap ................................................................................ 39 

Bradley program ................................................................................ 39 

Building Partner Combat Air Capacity ............................................ 40 

Capability to counter supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles .. 40 

Carbon fiber wheels and graphitic foam for Next Generation 

Combat Vehicle ............................................................................... 41 

CH–47F Block II Program ................................................................. 41 

CH–53K King Stallion program ........................................................ 42 

Close combat lethality task force ...................................................... 42 

Columbia-class schedule .................................................................... 43 

DOD efforts to improve friendly force identification ....................... 43 

Future Vertical Lift Capability Set 3 potential acceleration .......... 44 

Global Broadcast System Technologies ............................................ 45 

Guided missile frigate (FFG(X)) ........................................................ 45 

Improved Turbine Engine Program .................................................. 46 

Improving Air Force acquisition and sustainment processes ......... 46 

Marine Corps nano vertical takeoff and landing unmanned aerial 

systems ............................................................................................ 46 

Metrics for evaluating potential impacts to airspace ...................... 46 

Mobile aircrew restraint system ....................................................... 47 

Modular rugged power devices .......................................................... 47 

Mounted A–PNT solutions ................................................................ 47 

MQ–1 Gray Eagle briefing ................................................................ 48 

Multiyear block buy for F–35 ............................................................ 48 

Operational energy of generator sets ............................................... 48 

Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance (ISR) 

and heavy payloads ........................................................................ 49 

Personal recovery devices for servicemembers ................................ 50 

Reliability growth of systems on Ford-class aircraft carriers ......... 50 

Report on future force design alternatives for Department of 

the Air Force ................................................................................... 51 

Report on impact to force structure of using aircraft for missile 

defense ............................................................................................. 52 

Robotics and autonomous systems .................................................... 52 

Size, weight, power reductions of naval combat systems ............... 53 

Page

VI 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Small-Unit Support Vehicle replacement ......................................... 53 

Submarine industrial base and parts availability ........................... 53 

Supporting and expanding the submarine sub-contracting industrial base ......................................................................................... 54 

Survivable artillery ............................................................................ 54 

Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base .......................................... 54 

TH–57 replacement ............................................................................ 55 

UH–1N replacement .......................................................................... 55 

Unmanned aerial systems training locations .................................. 56 

Vehicle Reconnaissance System ........................................................ 56 

Virginia-class hull treatment briefing .............................................. 56 

Western Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) for FMS .............. 57 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 59 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 59 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 59 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 59 

Development and acquisition strategy to procure secure, low probability of detection data link network capability (sec. 211) ................ 59 

Establishment of secure next-generation wireless network (5G) infrastructure for the Nevada Test and Training Range and base infrastructure (sec. 212) ................................................................................ 59 

Limitation and report on Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 enduring capability (sec. 213) .................................................. 60 

Electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development program (sec. 214) ....................................................................................... 60 

Sense of the Senate on the Advanced Battle Management System 

(sec. 215) ................................................................................................. 61 

Modification of proof of concept commercialization program (sec. 216) 61 

Modification of Defense quantum information science and technology 

research and development program (sec. 217) .................................... 61 

Technology and National Security Fellowship (sec. 218) ....................... 62 

Direct Air Capture and Blue Carbon Removal Technology Program 

(sec. 219) ................................................................................................. 62 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 62 

National security emerging biotechnologies research and development 

program (sec. 231) .................................................................................. 62 

Cyber science and technology activities roadmap and reports (sec. 

232) ......................................................................................................... 63 

Requiring certain microelectronics products and services meet trusted 

supply chain and operational security standards (sec. 233) .............. 63 

Technical correction to Global Research Watch Program (sec. 234) ..... 64 

Additional technology areas for expedited access to technical talent 

(sec. 235) ................................................................................................. 64 

Sense of the Senate and periodic briefings on the security and availability of fifth-generation (5G) wireless network technology and 

production (sec. 236) .............................................................................. 64 

Transfer of Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (sec. 237) . 64 

Briefing on cooperative defense technology programs and risks of 

technology transfer to China or Russia (sec. 238) ............................... 65 

Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 239) ..................................................................................... 65 

Use of funds for Strategic Environmental Research Program, Environmental Security Technical Certification Program, and Operational Energy Capability Improvement (sec. 240) ............................. 65 

Funding for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear analysis of 

alternatives (sec. 241) ............................................................................ 65 

Review and assessment pertaining to transition of Department of 

Defense-originated dual-use technology (sec. 242) .............................. 66 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 66 

Army ........................................................................................................... 66 

Defense research sciences for counter unmanned aerial vehicle 

research ........................................................................................... 66 

3D printing research .......................................................................... 66 

Cyber Collaborative Research Alliance ............................................ 67 

Page

VII 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region ..................... 67 

Advanced materials manufacturing processes ................................. 67 

Biopolymer structural materials research ....................................... 68 

Advanced materials for infrastructure ............................................. 68 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle technology .................................. 68 

Composite tube and propulsion research ......................................... 69 

Printed armament components ......................................................... 69 

C3I Applied Cyber .............................................................................. 69 

Female warfighter performance research ........................................ 69 

Long duration battery storage .......................................................... 70 

Computational manufacturing engineering ..................................... 70 

Lightweight protective and hardening materials research ............. 70 

Robotic construction research ........................................................... 70 

Ground vehicle sustainment research .............................................. 71 

Next generation combat vehicle advanced technology for fuel cell 

propulsion and autonomous driving control ................................. 71 

Hypersonics testing research ............................................................ 71 

Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) ................................ 72 

Hypersonic weapon system ............................................................... 72 

Next Generation Squad Weapon—Automatic Rifle ......................... 72 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army ................................ 72 

Army contract writing system ........................................................... 73 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 ............................. 73 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 EMAM ................ 73 

Multi-Domain Artillery ...................................................................... 73 

Ground Robotics Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S– 

MET) ................................................................................................ 74 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle 50mm gun .................................. 74 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle .............................................................. 74 

Cybersecurity threat simulation research ........................................ 75 

Directed energy test capabilities ....................................................... 75 

CD ATACMS ...................................................................................... 75 

Nanoscale materials manufacturing ................................................. 75 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 76 

University Research Initiatives ........................................................ 76 

Carbon capture increase .................................................................... 76 

Electric propulsion research .............................................................. 76 

Energy resilience research ................................................................ 76 

Force protection applied research ..................................................... 77 

Test bed for autonomous ship systems ............................................. 77 

Interdisciplinary cyber research ....................................................... 77 

Common picture applied research .................................................... 77 

Applied warfighter safety and performance research ..................... 78 

Electromagnetic systems applied research ...................................... 78 

Navy industry-university undersea vehicle technologies ................ 78 

USMC Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) ....................... 79 

Mobile Unmanned/Manned Distributed Lethality Airborne Network ................................................................................................. 79 

Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) advance technology development ................................................................................................. 79 

Littoral battlespace sensing autonomous undersea vehicle ............ 79 

Large unmanned surface vessels ...................................................... 80 

Advanced submarine system development ...................................... 80 

Large Surface Combatant concept advanced design ....................... 81 

Large Surface Combatant preliminary design ................................. 81 

Advanced surface machinery system component prototyping ........ 82 

Columbia-class submarines ............................................................... 82 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules ............................................ 82 

U.S. Marine Corps Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software 

Pilot Program .................................................................................. 83 

Nuclear sea-launched cruise missile ................................................. 83 

V–22 nacelle improvement program ................................................. 83 

Mine Development—Quickstrike JDAM ER .................................... 84 

Page

VIII 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Information Technology Development .............................................. 84 

CH–53K King Stallion program ........................................................ 84 

Ship to Shore Connector .................................................................... 84 

Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems ......................... 84 

Intelligent Power Management Systems .......................................... 85 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 85 

High energy X-ray materials structures research ........................... 85 

Materials research ............................................................................. 85 

Aerospace Vehicle Technologies ........................................................ 86 

Counter unmanned aerial systems research .................................... 86 

Cyberspace dominance technology research .................................... 86 

Quantum science research ................................................................. 86 

High power microwave research ....................................................... 87 

Metals affordability research ............................................................ 87 

Acceleration of development of hypersonic quick reaction capability and hypersonic airbreathing weapon .................................. 87 

Shape morphing aircraft structures development ........................... 88 

Combat Search and Rescue advanced prototyping .......................... 88 

Low Cost Attributable Aircraft Technology ..................................... 88 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology .................................... 88 

Electronic combat technology ............................................................ 89 

Advanced spacecraft technology ........................................................ 89 

Advanced materials and materials manufacturing ......................... 89 

Battlespace knowledge and development demonstration ............... 90 

M–Code acceleration—advanced component development & prototypes ............................................................................................. 90 

Rapid repair and sustainability increase ......................................... 90 

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent ................................................... 90 

Light Attack experiment ................................................................... 91 

Cyber National Mission Force capabilities ...................................... 91 

ETERNALDARKNESS program development ................................ 91 

Joint Common Access Platform ........................................................ 92 

Protected Tactical Enterprise Service .............................................. 92 

Protected Tactical Service ................................................................. 92 

ERWn .................................................................................................. 92 

M–Code acceleration—system development & demonstration ....... 93 

Space Fence ........................................................................................ 93 

Major T&E Investment ...................................................................... 93 

Utah test range instrumentation ...................................................... 93 

Investment in hypersonic research and infrastructure ................... 94 

5G Military Operational Test Capability ......................................... 94 

Advanced Battle Management System base architecture .............. 95 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System ............................ 95 

HC–130 RDT&E ................................................................................. 95 

Airborne Launch Control System Replacement ............................... 95 

Advanced data transport flight test ................................................. 96 

ISR automation .................................................................................. 96 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 96 

Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research .............................................................................................. 96 

Submarine industrial base workforce development ........................ 97 

Aerospace education and research .................................................... 97 

Computer modeling of PFAS ............................................................. 97 

Cyber Security Research ................................................................... 97 

Artificial intelligence commercial solutions ..................................... 98 

Joint capability technology demonstrations ..................................... 98 

Emerging capabilities technology development ............................... 98 

SERDP increase ................................................................................. 98 

Program increase to support National Defense Strategy technologies ............................................................................................ 99 

ESTCP increase .................................................................................. 99 

MDA special programs ....................................................................... 100 

Neutral particle beam ........................................................................ 100 

Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System ................................................. 100 

Page

IX 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Defense Wide—Continued 

Strategic Capabilities Office .............................................................. 101 

Trusted and assured microelectronics .............................................. 101 

Rapid prototyping program ............................................................... 101 

Space Development Agency missile defense programs ................... 101 

Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor ............................ 102 

Joint Mission Environment Test Capability .................................... 102 

Technical Studies, Support, and Analysis ........................................ 103 

Systems engineering .......................................................................... 103 

Defense Digital Service development support ................................. 103 

Advanced manufacturing systems .................................................... 103 

Composite manufacturing technologies ............................................ 103 

Printed circuit boards ........................................................................ 104 

Rare earths materials research ......................................................... 104 

Sharkseer transfer ............................................................................. 104 

Sharkseer transfer ............................................................................. 105 

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities ......... 105 

Future Vertical Lift ............................................................................ 105 

Next Generation Information Communications Technology (5G) .. 106 

Transfer from OCO to Base .............................................................. 106 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 106 

Acquisition roadmaps for certain Navy unmanned systems ................. 106 

Advance power electronics ........................................................................ 107 

Army Futures Command research budget realignments ....................... 107 

Artificial intelligence and sensor fusion for force protection ................. 108 

Artificial intelligence for Army air and missile defense ......................... 108 

Back-packable Communications Intelligence System ............................ 108 

Battlefield situational awareness ............................................................. 109 

Briefing on detection of uncharted wires and obstacles to prevent 

aviation incidents ................................................................................... 109 

Demonstration pilots to demonstrate cost savings and enhanced performance of anti-corrosion nanotechnologies ....................................... 109 

Department of Defense artificial intelligence investment inventory .... 110 

Flame resistant military uniforms with multi-spectral sensor protection .......................................................................................................... 110 

High powered microwave test range asset .............................................. 110 

Historically black colleges and universities support for minority 

women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields . 111 

Hostile fire detection technology .............................................................. 111 

Human factors modeling and simulation ................................................ 111 

Hypersonic development ........................................................................... 112 

Importance and use of United States Active Ionospheric Research 

Facilities ................................................................................................. 112 

Interdisciplinary expeditionary cybersecurity research ......................... 113 

Light attack experiment ........................................................................... 113 

Multifunction capability to provide communications in contested environments ................................................................................................. 113 

Navy laser integration plans .................................................................... 114 

Production-ready sources for hypersonic materials ................................ 115 

Requirement for briefing on Advanced Battle Management System 

acquisition strategy ............................................................................... 115 

Use of commercial cloud services to support high performance computing needs ........................................................................................... 115 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 117 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 117 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 117 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environment ............................................................ 117 

Use of operational energy cost savings of Department of Defense 

(sec. 311) ................................................................................................. 117 

Use of proceeds from sales of electrical energy generated from geothermal resources (sec. 312) ................................................................. 117 

Energy resilience programs and activities (sec. 313) ............................. 117 

Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation program 

(sec. 314) ................................................................................................. 117 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 315) ..................................................................................... 117 

Page

X 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE —Continued 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environment —Continued 

Prohibition on use of perfluoroalkyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances for land-based applications of firefighting foam (sec. 

316) ......................................................................................................... 118 

Transfer authority for funding of study and assessment on health 

implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination 

in drinking water by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (sec. 317) .................................................................................. 118 

Cooperative agreements with States to address contamination by 

perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (sec. 318) ................... 118 

Modification of Department of Defense environmental restoration authorities to include Federal Government facilities used by National 

Guard (sec. 319) ..................................................................................... 118 

Budgeting of Department of Defense relating to extreme weather 

(sec. 320) ................................................................................................. 118 

Pilot program for availability of working-capital funds for increased 

combat capability through energy optimization (sec. 321) ................. 118 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy intensity at military installations (sec. 322) ....................................................................................... 119 

Technical and grammatical corrections and repeal of obsolete provisions relating to energy (sec. 323) ........................................................ 119 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 119 

Requirement for memoranda of understanding between the Air Force 

and the Navy regarding depot maintenance (sec. 331) ...................... 119 

Modification to limitation on length of overseas forward deployment 

of naval vessels (sec. 332) ..................................................................... 119 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 119 

Report on modernization of Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (sec. 

341) ......................................................................................................... 119 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 120 

Strategy to improve infrastructure of certain depots of the Department of Defense (sec. 351) .................................................................... 120 

Limitation on use of funds regarding the basing of KC–46A aircraft 

outside the continental United States (sec. 352) ................................. 120 

Prevention of encroachment on military training routes and military 

operations areas (sec. 353) .................................................................... 120 

Expansion and enhancement of authorities on transfer and adoption 

of military animals (sec. 354) ............................................................... 120 

Limitation on contracting relating to Defense Personal Property Program (sec. 355) ....................................................................................... 121 

Prohibition on subjective upgrades by commanders of unit ratings 

in monthly readiness reporting on military units (sec. 356) .............. 121 

Extension of temporary installation reutilization authority for arsenals, depots, and plants (sec. 357) ........................................................ 121 

Clarification of food ingredient requirements for food or beverages 

provided by the Department of Defense (sec. 358) ............................. 122 

Technical correction to deadline for transition to Defense Readiness 

Reporting System Strategic (sec. 359) ................................................. 122 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 122 

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region ............................ 122 

Army Base Operations Support under execution ................................... 123 

Army savings from revised housing cost share ....................................... 123 

C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence Operations Center 

Europe Analytic Center ......................................................................... 123 

Army advertising and recruiting budget decrease ................................. 123 

Army Other Personnel Support under execution ................................... 124 

Army Claims Activities under execution ................................................. 124 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Army ........................................ 124 

Family housing pilot program .................................................................. 124 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army sustainment .................... 125 

Army National Guard facilities sustainment disaster recovery increase ...................................................................................................... 125 

Army National Guard recruiting and advertising decrease .................. 125 

Navy depot maintenance unfunded requirement increase .................... 125 

Posture site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region .............................. 126 

Navy housing cost share ........................................................................... 126 

Page

XI 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE —Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy advertising reduction ...................................................................... 126 

Navy administration decrease .................................................................. 127 

Navy audit reduction ................................................................................ 127 

Resilient Energy Program Office ............................................................. 127 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Navy ........................................ 127 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Marine Corps .......................... 128 

Air Force savings from revised housing cost share ................................ 128 

US CYBERCOM ........................................................................................ 128 

Air Force advertising reduction ............................................................... 128 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Air Force ................................. 129 

Innovative Readiness Training increase ................................................. 129 

STARBASE program ................................................................................. 129 

Defense Information Systems Agency MilCloud ..................................... 130 

Sharkseer transfer .................................................................................... 130 

Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation ................................................. 130 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 130 

Consolidated adjudication facility ............................................................ 131 

Impact aid .................................................................................................. 131 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency 

sustainment ............................................................................................ 132 

Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup ........................................................................... 132 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nation-wide human 

health assessment .................................................................................. 132 

Department of Defense Emerging Contaminants increase .................... 132 

Industrial Policy program support ........................................................... 132 

Improvement of occupational license portability for military spouses 

through interstate compacts ................................................................. 133 

National Commission on Military Aviation Safety ................................. 133 

Supplemental funding for the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service ..................................................................... 133 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative .............................. 134 

Defense Digital Service expert civilians .................................................. 134 

Sharkseer transfer .................................................................................... 134 

Foreign currency fluctuation reduction ................................................... 135 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps increase .................................. 135 

Printing inefficiency reduction ................................................................. 135 

Transfer of OCO to Base account ............................................................. 135 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 135 

Arctic search and rescue ........................................................................... 135 

Army Training Next virtual reality pilot program ................................. 136 

Battle Record Information Core Environment (BRICE) maintenance 

application .............................................................................................. 136 

Cold spray technology ............................................................................... 137 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense utility resilience planning to support cybersecurity threats ................................. 137 

Comptroller General review of mobility in contested environments ..... 137 

Corrosion prevention briefing ................................................................... 138 

Data collection and reporting to validation of small arms simulation 

readiness improvements and resourcing planning ............................. 139 

Defense energy resilience tools for project development ........................ 139 

Development and fielding of expeditionary energy technology in the 

Department of Defense .......................................................................... 140 

Encroachment on military installations .................................................. 140 

Extended funding obligation period for private contracted ship maintenance .................................................................................................... 140 

Improving Navy radar training and readiness ....................................... 141 

Improving oversight of pilots in non-operational staff positions ........... 141 

Liability exposure for electric companies during national emergencies .................................................................................................... 142 

Lightweight ammunition .......................................................................... 142 

Marine Depot Maintenance Command facilities review ........................ 142 

National Guard Unit equipped flying squadrons ................................... 143 

Prepositioned Assets in the Indo-Pacific Region ..................................... 143 

Preservation of the Force and Families initiative .................................. 144 

Public-to-public partnerships briefing requirement ............................... 144 

Page

XII 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE —Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Recycled content in clothing items ........................................................... 145 

Report on future Combat Search and Rescue in support of National 

Defense Strategy .................................................................................... 145 

Report on guidelines for maintenance and preservation of Department of Defense historic aircraft and spacecraft ................................ 146 

Report on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic Acid contamination on military installations .................................................... 146 

Report on Special Federal Aviation Regulation waivers for U.S. air 

carriers and recommendations to expedite re-designation of civil 

aircraft as state aircraft ........................................................................ 147 

Rotary-wing aviation foreign internal defense ........................................ 147 

Storm water utilities privatization .......................................................... 148 

Study on fire extinguishers ...................................................................... 148 

Westover Air Reserve Base—Defense Logistics Agency study of fuel 

pipeline ................................................................................................... 149 

Women servicemember personal protective equipment ......................... 149 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 151 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 151 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 151 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 151 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 151 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 151 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 152 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 414) ................................................ 153 

Authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserves on active duty (sec. 

415) ......................................................................................................... 153 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 153 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 153 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 153 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 153 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 155 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 155 

Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths of certain 

commissioned officers on active duty (sec. 501) .................................. 155 

Maker of original appointments in a regular or reserve component 

of commissioned officers previously subject to original appointment 

in other type of component (sec. 502) ................................................... 156 

Furnishing of adverse information on officers to promotion selection 

boards (sec. 503) ..................................................................................... 156 

Limitation on number of officers recommendable for promotion by 

promotion selection boards (sec. 504) ................................................... 157 

Expansion of authority for continuation on active duty of officers 

in certain military specialties and career tracks (sec. 505) ................ 157 

Higher grade in retirement for officers following reopening of determination or certification of retired grade (sec. 506) ............................ 157 

Availability on the Internet of certain information about officers serving in general or flag officer grades (sec. 507) ..................................... 157 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 158 

Repeal of requirement for review of certain Army Reserve officer 

unit vacancy promotions by commanders of associated active duty 

units (sec. 511) ....................................................................................... 158 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 158 

Modification of authorities on management of deployments of members of the Armed Forces and related unit operating and personnel 

tempo matters (sec. 515) ....................................................................... 158 

Repeal of requirement that parental leave be taken in one increment 

(sec. 516) ................................................................................................. 158 

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed Forces (sec. 

517) ......................................................................................................... 158 

Modification of notification on manning of afloat naval forces (sec. 

518) ......................................................................................................... 158 

Report on expansion of the Close Airman Support team approach 

of the Air Force to the other Armed Forces (sec. 519) ........................ 159 

Page

XIII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Related Matters ........................................ 159 

Part I—Matters Relating to Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault Generally .................................................................. 159 

Department of Defense-wide policy and military department-specific programs on reinvigoration of the prevention of sexual 

assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 521) ........ 159 

Enactment and expansion of policy on withholding of initial disposition authority for certain offenses under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (sec. 522) .......................................................... 159 

Training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authorities on 

exercise of disposition authority for sexual assault and collateral offenses (sec. 523) ................................................................... 160 

Expansion of responsibilities of commanders for victims of sexual 

assault committed by another member of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 524) .......................................................................................... 160 

Training for commanders in the Armed Forces on their role 

in all stages of military justice in connection with sexual assault (sec. 525) ................................................................................ 160 

Notice to victims of alleged sexual assault of pendency of further 

administrative action following a determination not to refer 

to trial by court-martial (sec. 526) ................................................ 161 

Safe to report policy applicable across the Armed Forces (sec. 

527) .................................................................................................. 161 

Report on expansion of Air Force safe to report policy across 

the Armed Forces (sec. 528) ........................................................... 161 

Proposal for separate punitive article in the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice on sexual harassment (sec. 529) ........................ 162 

Treatment of information in Catch a Serial Offender Program 

for certain purposes (sec. 530) ....................................................... 162 

Report on preservation of recourse to restricted report on sexual 

assault for victims of sexual assault following certain victim 

or third-party communications (sec. 531) ..................................... 162 

Authority for return of personal property to victims of sexual 

assault who file a Restricted Report before conclusion of related proceedings (sec. 532) ........................................................... 163 

Extension of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces 

(sec. 533) .......................................................................................... 163 

Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct (sec. 534) ............................................................................ 163 

Independent reviews and assessments on race and ethnicity in 

the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault 

in the Armed Forces (sec. 535) ...................................................... 164 

Report on mechanisms to enhance the integration and synchronization of activities of Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution personnel with activities of military criminal investigation 

organizations (sec. 536) .................................................................. 164 

Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation by the Armed Forces of recent statutory requirements 

on sexual assault prevention and response in the military (sec. 

537) .................................................................................................. 164 

Part II—Special Victims’ Counsel Matters ............................................. 165 

Legal assistance by Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of alleged domestic violence offenses (sec. 541) ................................... 165 

Other Special Victims’ Counsel matters (sec. 542) .......................... 165 

Availability of Special Victims’ Counsel at military installations 

(sec. 543) .......................................................................................... 165 

Training for Special Victims’ Counsel on civilian criminal justice 

matters in the States of the military installations to which 

assigned (sec. 544) .......................................................................... 166 

Part III—Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge 

Review Board Matters ........................................................................... 166 

Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or requests 

for review of discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces 

(sec. 546) .......................................................................................... 166 

Page

XIV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Related Matters—Continued 

Part III—Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge 

Review Board Matters—Continued 

Reduction in required number of members of discharge review 

boards (sec. 547) ............................................................................. 166 

Enhancement of personnel on boards for the correction of military records and discharge review boards (sec. 548) ................... 166 

Inclusion of intimate partner violence and spousal abuse among 

supporting rationales for certain claims for corrections of military records and discharge review (sec. 549) ............................... 167 

Advice and counsel of trauma experts in review by boards for 

correction of military records and discharge review boards of 

certain claims (sec. 550) ................................................................. 167 

Training of members of boards for correction of military records 

and discharge review boards on sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, spousal abuse, and related matters (sec. 551) ....... 167 

Limitations and requirements in connection with separations for 

members of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health 

conditions in connection with a sex-related, intimate partner 

violence-related, or spousal abuse-related offense (sec. 552) ...... 168 

Liberal consideration of evidence in certain claims by boards 

for the correction of military records and discharge review 

boards (sec. 553) ............................................................................. 168 

Part IV—Other Military Justice Matters ................................................ 168 

Expansion of pre-referral matters reviewable by military judges 

and military magistrates in the interest of efficiency in military justice (sec. 555) ...................................................................... 168 

Policies and procedures on registration at military installations 

of civilian protective orders applicable to members of the 

Armed Forces assigned to such installations and certain other 

individuals (sec. 556) ...................................................................... 168 

Increase in number of digital forensic examiners for the military 

criminal investigation organizations (sec. 557) ............................ 169 

Survey of members of the Armed Forces on their experiences 

with military investigations and military justice (sec. 558) ....... 169 

Public access to dockets, filings, and court records of courtsmartial and other records of trial of the military justice system 

(sec. 559) .......................................................................................... 169 

Pilot programs on defense investigators in the military justice 

system (sec. 560) ............................................................................. 170 

Report on military justice system involving alternative authority 

for determining whether to prefer or refer charges for felony 

offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 561) .. 170 

Report on standardization among the military departments in 

collection and presentation of information on matters within 

the military justice system (sec. 562) ............................................ 171 

Report on establishment of guardian ad litem program for certain military dependents who are victim or witness of offenses 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving abuse 

or exploitation (sec. 563) ................................................................ 171 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, Transition, and Resilience ........ 172 

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. 

566) ......................................................................................................... 172 

Authority for detail of certain enlisted members of the Armed Forces 

as students at law schools (sec. 567) .................................................... 172 

Connections of members retiring or separating from the Armed 

Forces with community-based organizations and related entities 

(sec. 568) ................................................................................................. 172 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 172 

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 172 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies 

that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and 

Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) .................. 172 

Page

XV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

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

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters—Continued 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) ............. 173 

Ri′katak Guest Student Program at United States Army Garrison-Kwajalein Atoll (sec. 573) ....................................................... 173 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters .......................................... 173 

Two-year extension of authority for reimbursement for State licensure and certification costs of spouses of members of the 

Armed Forces arising from relocation to another State (sec. 

576) .................................................................................................. 173 

Improvement of occupational license portability for military 

spouses through interstate compacts (sec. 577) ........................... 173 

Modification of responsibility of the Office of Special Needs for 

individualized service plans for members of military families 

with special needs (sec. 578) .......................................................... 174 

Clarifying technical amendment on direct hire authority for the 

Department of Defense for childcare services providers for Department child development centers (sec. 579) ............................ 174 

Pilot program on information sharing between Department of 

Defense and designated relatives and friends of members of 

the Armed Forces regarding the experiences and challenges 

of military service (sec. 580) .......................................................... 174 

Briefing on use of Family Advocacy Programs to address domestic violence (sec. 581) ...................................................................... 175 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 175 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to John J. Duffy 

for acts of valor in Vietnam (sec. 585) ................................................. 175 

Standardization of honorable service requirement for award of military decorations (sec. 586) ..................................................................... 175 

Authority to award or present a decoration not previously recommended in a timely fashion following a review requested by 

Congress (sec. 587) ................................................................................ 175 

Authority to make posthumous and honorary promotions and appointments following a review requested by Congress (sec. 588) ...... 175 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 176 

Military funeral honors matters (sec. 591) .............................................. 176 

Inclusion of homeschooled students in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps units (sec. 592) ...................................................................... 176 

Sense of Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (sec. 

593) ......................................................................................................... 176 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 176 

Active-Duty Service Commitment for Personnel Graduating Cybersecurity Courses ........................................................................ 176 

Active-Duty service obligations for military service academy 

graduates ......................................................................................... 177 

Adequacy of childcare workforce and capacity across the Department of Defense .............................................................................. 177 

Air battle manager accessions .......................................................... 178 

Assessment and report on expanding the eligibility for the My 

Career Advancement Account Program ........................................ 178 

Basic training athletic shoe variant analysis for new recruits ...... 179 

Briefing on Staff Judge Advocates’ trial experience ........................ 179 

Childcare parity ................................................................................. 180 

Command climate assessment in officer and enlisted appraisal 

reports ............................................................................................. 180 

Comptroller General Study on Effectiveness of Student Loan Forgiveness Program on Readiness and Recruiting .......................... 181 

Concern over hunger and food security in military families .......... 181 

Concurrent use of Montgomery G.I. Bill and Department of Defense-funded tuition assistance ..................................................... 182 

Department of Defense cooperation with United States Interagency Council on Homelessness .................................................. 182 

Department of Defense credentialing ............................................... 183 

Development of strategic basing factors to support military families .................................................................................................... 183 

Page

XVI 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed Forces ..... 183 

Duty to intervene ............................................................................... 184 

Encouraging victims of domestic violence and sex-related offenses 

to secure military and civilian protection orders ......................... 184 

Enlistment and accession testing and standards for non-native 

English speaking recruits .............................................................. 185 

Expanding the Military Ballot Tracking Pilot to additional military voters and their families ........................................................ 186 

Expansion of the Military Spouse Employment Partnership 

across the Department of Defense ................................................ 187 

Expedited naturalization of non-citizen servicemembers ............... 187 

Extended paid family leave for secondary caregivers ..................... 188 

Family Child Care home expansion .................................................. 188 

Full time support manpower study .................................................. 189 

Military childcare system study on outcomes for children and 

parents ............................................................................................. 189 

Rapidly incorporating data tools to enhance military recruiting ... 189 

Reliability and completeness of information in inspector general 

case management systems ............................................................. 189 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Scholarship Program and Recruiting of Future Cyber Officers .................................................. 190 

Review of support services provided to military servicemembers 

assigned to designated remote bases ............................................ 191 

Rights of sexual assault survivors to testify at court-martial sentencing proceedings ........................................................................ 191 

Safe to Report policy .......................................................................... 191 

Special Victims’ Counsel legal consultation and assistance to victims subject to retaliation .............................................................. 192 

Support for Air Force Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

Flight Academy ............................................................................... 192 

Telework option for military spouses in Department of Defense 

contracts .......................................................................................... 193 

Timely response to inspector general referral of reports of investigation substantiating reprisal ..................................................... 193 

Training Department of Defense and military department human 

resources personnel to assist military spouses seeking employment ................................................................................................. 194 

Transition Assistance Programs at remote and isolated installations ................................................................................................. 195 

Tuition assistance in the Reserves and National Guard ................ 195 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 197 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 197 

Expansion of eligibility for exceptional transitional compensation for 

dependents to dependents of current members (sec. 601) .................. 197 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 197 

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay authorities (sec. 611) .......................................................................................... 197 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 197 

Extension of pilot program on a Government lodging program (sec. 

621) ......................................................................................................... 197 

Reinvestment of travel refunds by the Department of Defense (sec. 

622) ......................................................................................................... 198 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ................. 198 

Contributions to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund 

based on pay costs per Armed Force rather than on Armed Forceswide basis (sec. 631) .............................................................................. 198 

Modification of authorities on eligibility for and replacement of gold 

star lapel buttons (sec. 632) .................................................................. 199 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ............................................................................... 199 

Defense resale system matters (sec. 641) ................................................ 199 

Treatment of fees on services provided as supplemental funds for 

commissary operations (sec. 642) ......................................................... 200 

Procurement by commissary stores of certain locally sourced products 

(sec. 643) ................................................................................................. 200 

Page

XVII 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 200 

Blended Retirement System implementation study ............................... 200 

Commissary store operations ................................................................... 201 

Comptroller General assessment on defense resale reform ................... 201 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 203 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits ................................... 203 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program (sec. 

701) ......................................................................................................... 203 

TRICARE payment options for retirees and their dependents (sec. 

702) ......................................................................................................... 203 

Lead level screening and testing for children (sec. 703) ........................ 203 

Provision of blood testing for firefighters of Department of Defense 

to determine exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (sec. 704) ................................................................................... 204 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 204 

Modification of organization of military health system (sec. 711) ......... 204 

Support by military health system of medical requirements of combatant commands (sec. 712) .................................................................. 204 

Tours of duty of commanders or directors of military treatment facilities (sec. 713) .......................................................................................... 204 

Expansion of strategy to improve acquisition of managed care support contracts under TRICARE program (sec. 714) ............................ 204 

Establishment of regional medical hubs to support combatant commands (sec. 715) ..................................................................................... 205 

Monitoring of adverse event data on dietary supplement use by members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716) ..................................................... 205 

Enhancement of recordkeeping with respect to exposure by members 

of the Armed Forces to certain occupational and environmental 

hazards while deployed overseas (sec. 717) ......................................... 205 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 206 

Extension and clarification of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 721) ............................................................................... 206 

Appointment of non-ex officio members of the Henry M. Jackson 

Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (sec. 722) ..... 206 

Officers authorized to command Army dental units (sec. 723) .............. 206 

Establishment of Academic Health System in National Capital Region (sec. 724) ......................................................................................... 206 

Provision of veterinary services by veterinary professionals of the 

Department of Defense in emergencies (sec. 725) ............................... 207 

Five-year extension of authority to continue the DOD–VA Health 

Care Sharing Incentive Fund (sec. 726) .............................................. 207 

Pilot Program on civilian and military partnerships to enhance interoperability and medical surge capability and capacity of National 

Disaster Medical System (sec. 727) ...................................................... 207 

Modification of requirements for longitudinal medical study on blast 

pressure exposure of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 728) ......... 207 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 208 

Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine ................................ 208 

Chronic migraine and post-traumatic headaches ................................... 208 

Comptroller General review of enlisted medical workforce ................... 208 

Department of Defense briefing on the rate and incidence of pregnancy-associated deaths ........................................................................ 209 

Expansion of studies of exposure to blast in training and operations 

and documentation of blast exposure in individual longitudinal 

exposure records .................................................................................... 209 

Healthy food options on military installations ....................................... 210 

Home healthcare services ......................................................................... 210 

Objective diagnostic capabilities for traumatic brain injury ................. 210 

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations for specialized medical training ............................................................................. 211 

Prescription drug labels ............................................................................ 211 

Study on infertility in members of the Armed Forces ............................ 211 

Page

XVIII 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Survey to determine providers’ attitude towards contraceptive services, their knowledge on obligations to dispense and counsel on 

contraception and assess potential cultural barriers to providing 

contraceptive services ............................................................................ 212 

Tactical combat casualty care training .................................................... 212 

TRICARE coverage of continuous glucose monitors ............................... 213 

TRICARE improper medical claims payments ....................................... 213 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 215 

Subtitle A—Contracting and Acquisition Provisions ..................................... 215 

Pilot program on intellectual property evaluation for acquisition programs (sec. 801) ..................................................................................... 215 

Pilot program to use alpha contracting teams for complex requirements (sec. 802) ..................................................................................... 215 

Modification of written approval requirement for task and delivery 

order single contract awards (sec. 803) ................................................ 215 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced 

in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 

804) ......................................................................................................... 216 

Modification of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report 

(sec. 805) ................................................................................................. 216 

Department of Defense use of fixed-price contracts (sec. 806) .............. 216 

Pilot program to accelerate contracting and pricing processes (sec. 

807) ......................................................................................................... 216 

Pilot program to streamline decision-making processes for weapon 

systems (sec. 808) .................................................................................. 216 

Documentation of market research related to commercial item determinations (sec. 809) ............................................................................... 217 

Modification to small purchase threshold exception to sourcing requirements for certain articles (sec. 810) ............................................. 217 

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

Naval vessel certification required before Milestone B approval (sec. 

821) ......................................................................................................... 217 

Subtitle C—Industrial Base Matters .............................................................. 217 

Modernization of acquisition processes to ensure integrity of industrial base (sec. 831) ................................................................................ 217 

Assessment of precision-guided missiles for reliance on foreign-made 

microelectronic components (sec. 832) ................................................. 218 

Mitigating risks related to foreign ownership, control, or influence 

of Department of Defense contractors or subcontractors (sec. 833) ... 218 

Extension and revisions to Never Contract With the Enemy (sec. 

834) ......................................................................................................... 219 

Subtitle D—Small Business Matters .............................................................. 219 

Reauthorization and improvement of Department of Defense MentorProtege Program (sec. 841) ................................................................... 219 

Modification of justification and approval requirement for certain 

Department of Defense contracts (sec. 842) ........................................ 219 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Software-Driven Capabilities ................. 220 

Improved management of information technology and cyberspace investments (sec. 851) ............................................................................... 220 

Special pathways for rapid acquisition of software applications and 

upgrades (sec. 852) ................................................................................ 220 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 221 

Notification of Navy procurement production disruptions (sec. 861) .... 221 

Modification to acquisition authority of the Commander of the United 

States Cyber Command (sec. 862) ........................................................ 221 

Prohibition on operation or procurement of foreign-made unmanned 

aircraft systems (sec. 863) ..................................................................... 221 

Prohibition on contracting with persons that have business operations with the Maduro regime (sec. 864) ........................................... 221 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of 

Defense efforts to combat human trafficking through procurement 

practices (sec. 865) ................................................................................. 221 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 222 

Alternatives to cost or pricing data ......................................................... 222 

Page

XIX 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Annual report on denials of contracting officer data requests .............. 222 

Appreciation for the work of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining 

and Codifying Acquisition Regulations ................................................ 223 

Army strategies to manage intellectual property ................................... 223 

Comptroller General assessment of Internet Protocol version four 

(IPv4) utilization .................................................................................... 223 

Comptroller General review of Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation 

Program contract ................................................................................... 224 

Contractor workplace safety ..................................................................... 224 

Implications of acquisition reform for the organic industrial base ....... 225 

Notifications related to exercising an option on a contract ................... 225 

Optimizing processes and acquisition of contract writing capabilities . 225 

Place of performance in Department of Defense contracts .................... 226 

Proper evaluation of past performance and experience of potential 

offerors .................................................................................................... 226 

Report on service contract management and oversight ......................... 226 

Secure development operations software stacks ..................................... 227 

Stakeholder engagement practices of the Defense Innovation Board ... 227 

Training of skilled technicians for the defense industrial base ............. 228 

Uncertified cost data ................................................................................. 228 

Wider adoption of model contracts for Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) program awards ........................................................ 229 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 231 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters .......... 231 

Headquarters activities of the Department of Defense matters (sec. 

901) ......................................................................................................... 231 

Responsibility of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment for Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative 

Agreement Program (sec. 902) .............................................................. 231 

Return to Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense 

of responsibility for business systems and related matters (sec. 

903) ......................................................................................................... 232 

Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and Deputy Principal Cyber 

Advisor (sec. 904) ................................................................................... 232 

Limitation on the transfer of Strategic Capabilities Office (sec. 905) .. 232 

Subtitle B—Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense Offices and Elements .......................................................................... 233 

Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for Energy, Installations, and Environment (sec. 911) ..................................................... 233 

Repeal of conditional designation of Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Corps as a basic branch of the Army (sec. 912) .................................. 233 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 233 

Exclusion from limitations on personnel in the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and Department of Defense headquarters of fellows 

appointed under the John S. McCain Defense Fellows Program 

(sec. 921) ................................................................................................. 233 

Report on resources to implement the civilian casualty policy of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 922) ......................................................... 233 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 233 

Cross-functional teams ............................................................................. 233 

Remote and isolated research and testing installations ........................ 234 

Secretariat for Special Operations ........................................................... 234 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 237 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 237 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 237 

Modification of required elements of annual reports on emergency 

and extraordinary expenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 

1002) ....................................................................................................... 237 

Inclusion of military construction projects in annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and the combatant commands (sec. 1003) ................................................................................... 237 

Page

XX 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters—Continued 

Prohibition on delegation of responsibility for submittal to Congress 

of Out-Year Unconstrained Total Munitions Requirements and 

Out-Year Inventory numbers (sec. 1004) ............................................. 237 

Element in annual reports on the Financial Improvement and Audit 

Remediation Plan on activities with respect to classified programs 

(sec. 1005) ............................................................................................... 237 

Modification of semiannual briefings on the consolidated corrective 

action plan of the Department of Defense for financial management 

information (sec. 1006) .......................................................................... 238 

Update of authorities and renaming of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 1007) ................................. 238 

Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities ................................................................ 238 

Modification of authority to support a unified counterdrug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) ........................... 238 

Two-year extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1012) .................................................................................. 239 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 239 

Modification of authority to purchase vessels using funds in National 

Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016) .......................................................... 239 

Senior Technical Authority for each naval vessel class (sec. 1017) ...... 239 

Permanent authority for sustaining operational readiness of Littoral 

Combat Ships on extended deployment (sec. 1018) ............................ 240 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 241 

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) ........................................ 241 

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) ... 241 

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) ......................................... 241 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to close or relinquish control 

of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 

1024) ....................................................................................................... 241 

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) ..................... 242 

Chief Medical Officer at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 1026) ............................................................................ 242 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 242 

Clarification of authority of military commissions under chapter 47A 

of title 10, United States Code, to punish contempt (sec. 1031) ........ 242 

Comprehensive Department of Defense policy on collective self-defense (sec. 1032) ..................................................................................... 243 

Oversight of Department of Defense execute orders (sec. 1033) ........... 243 

Prohibition on ownership or trading of stocks in certain companies 

by Department of Defense officers and employees (sec. 1034) ........... 243 

Policy regarding the transition of data and applications to the cloud 

(sec. 1035) ............................................................................................... 244 

Modernization of inspection authorities applicable to the National 

Guard and extension of inspection authority to the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau (sec. 1036) ...................................................... 244 

Enhancement of authorities on forfeiture of Federal benefits by the 

National Guard (sec. 1037) ................................................................... 244 

Modernization of authorities on property and fiscal officers of the 

National Guard (sec. 1038) ................................................................... 244 

Limitation on placement by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness of work with federally funded research and 

development centers (sec. 1039) ........................................................... 245 

Termination of requirement for Department of Defense facility access 

clearances for joint ventures composed of previously-cleared entities (sec. 1040) ........................................................................................ 245 

Page

XXI 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations—Continued 

Designation of Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Ports (sec. 

1041) ....................................................................................................... 245 

Extension of National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence 

(sec. 1042) ............................................................................................... 246 

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup (sec. 1043) ... 246 

Limitation on use of funds to house children separated from parents 

(sec. 1044) ............................................................................................... 246 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 246 

Modification of annual reporting requirements on defense manpower 

(sec. 1051) ............................................................................................... 246 

Report on Department of Defense efforts to implement a force planning process in support of implementation of the 2018 National 

Defense Strategy (sec. 1052) ................................................................. 246 

Extension of annual reports on civilian casualties in connection with 

United States military operations (sec. 1053) ..................................... 247 

Report on joint force plan for implementation of strategies of the 

Department of Defense for the Arctic (sec. 1054) ............................... 247 

Report on use of Northern Tier bases in implementation of Arctic 

strategy of the United States (sec. 1055) ............................................. 247 

Report on the Department of Defense plan for mass-casualty disaster 

response operations in the Arctic (sec. 1056) ...................................... 248 

Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation of retired 

general or flag officers by foreign governments for Emoluments 

Clause purposes (sec. 1057) .................................................................. 248 

Transmittal to Congress of requests for assistance received by the 

Department of Defense from other departments (sec. 1058) .............. 248 

Semiannual report on Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (sec. 1059) ............... 248 

Comptroller General of the United States report on post-government 

employment of former Department of Defense officials (sec. 1060) ... 249 

Subtitle G—Treatment of Contaminated Water Near Military Installations ................................................................................................................ 249 

Treatment of contaminated water near military installations (secs. 

1071–1075) ............................................................................................. 249 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 249 

Revision to authorities relating to mail service for members of the 

Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilians overseas (sec. 

1081) ....................................................................................................... 249 

Access to and use of military post offices by United States citizens 

employed overseas by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who 

perform functions in support of military operations of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 1082) ................................................................................... 249 

Guarantee of residency for spouses of members of uniformed services 

(sec. 1083) ............................................................................................... 250 

Extension of requirement for briefings on the national biodefense 

strategy (sec. 1084) ................................................................................ 250 

Extension of National Commission on Military Aviation Safety (sec. 

1085) ....................................................................................................... 250 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 250 

Allocation of Military Forces .................................................................... 250 

Assessment of the Requirement for a Strategic Arctic Port .................. 251 

Assignment of responsibility for the Arctic to a deputy assistant 

secretary of defense ............................................................................... 251 

Briefing on civilian casualties .................................................................. 252 

Combatant Command pandemic planning .............................................. 252 

Eliminating delays in initiating support to Government Accountability Office audits ............................................................................... 252 

Evaluation of modeling and simulation used for force planning and 

theater operational requirements ......................................................... 253 

Information on Defense Spending ............................................................ 254 

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by 

law ........................................................................................................... 254 

Report on the impacts of continuing resolutions .................................... 255 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 257 

Page

XXII 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Modification of temporary assignments of Department of Defense 

employees to a private-sector organization (sec. 1101) ....................... 257 

Modification of number of available appointments for certain agencies 

under personnel management authority to attract experts in 

science and engineering (sec. 1102) ...................................................... 257 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty in a combat 

zone (sec. 1103) ...................................................................................... 257 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian 

employees working overseas (sec. 1104) .............................................. 258 

Reimbursement of Federal employees for Federal, State, and local 

income taxes incurred during travel, transportation, and relocation 

(sec. 1105) ............................................................................................... 258 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 258 

Analysis of competitive salary and benefits for STEM professionals ... 258 

Appointments of retired members of the Armed Forces to positions 

in the Department of Defense ............................................................... 259 

Promulgation and delegation of Department of Defense direct hire 

authority ................................................................................................. 260 

Report on investments in national security human capital ................... 260 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 263 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 263 

Extension of support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec. 

1201) ....................................................................................................... 263 

Extension of authority for cross servicing agreements for loan of 

personnel protection and personnel survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec. 1202) .................................................................. 263 

Two-year extension of program authority for Global Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1203) .......................................................................... 263 

Modification of reporting requirement for use of funds for security 

cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1204) .................................. 263 

Institutional legal capacity building initiative for foreign defense 

forces (sec. 1205) .................................................................................... 263 

Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in national 

security interest of the United States (sec. 1206) ............................... 264 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan ........................ 264 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan 

(sec. 1211) ............................................................................................... 264 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1212) ........................................ 264 

Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (sec. 1213) 264 

Extension and modification of reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations 

(sec. 1214) ............................................................................................... 264 

Support for reconciliation activities led by the Government of Afghanistan (sec. 1215) ..................................................................................... 265 

Sense of Senate on special immigrant visa program for Afghan allies 

(sec. 1216) ............................................................................................... 265 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran ................................. 265 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to vetted Syrian 

groups (sec. 1221) .................................................................................. 265 

Extension of authority and limitation on use of funds to provide 

assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 

1222) ....................................................................................................... 265 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 

activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223) ... 266 

Coordinator of United States Government activities and matters in 

connection with detainees who are members of the Islamic State 

of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1224) ................................................................. 266 

Report on lessons learned from efforts to liberate Mosul and Raqqah 

from control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1225) ......... 266 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation ........ 266 

Prohibition on availability of funds relating to sovereignty of the 

Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1231) ....................................... 266 

Page

XXIII 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation— 

Continued 

Prohibition on use of funds for withdrawal of Armed Forces from 

Europe in the event of United States withdrawal from the North 

Atlantic Treaty (sec. 1232) .................................................................... 267 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United 

States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1233) ................................... 267 

Modification and extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 

(sec. 1234) ............................................................................................... 267 

Extension of authority for training for Eastern European national 

security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec. 1235) ..... 268 

Limitation on transfer of F–35 aircraft to the Republic of Turkey 

(sec. 1236) ............................................................................................... 268 

Modifications of briefing, notification, and reporting requirements 

relating to non-compliance by the Russian Federation with its obligations under the INF Treaty (sec. 1237) ............................................ 269 

Extension and modification of security assistance for Baltic nations 

for joint program for interoperability and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1238) ................................................................................ 269 

Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Readiness Initiative 

(sec. 1239) ............................................................................................... 270 

Reports on contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(sec. 1240) ............................................................................................... 270 

Future years plans for European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1241) ...... 270 

Modification of reporting requirements relating to the Open Skies 

Treaty (sec. 1242) ................................................................................... 271 

Report on nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and nuclear 

modernization of the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1243) ............. 271 

Sense of Senate on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (sec. 1244) ........................................................................ 271 

Sense of Senate on United States force posture in Europe and the 

Republic of Poland (sec. 1245) .............................................................. 271 

Sense of Senate on United States partnership with the Republic 

of Georgia (sec. 1246) ............................................................................ 271 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region ............................. 271 

Limitation on use of funds to reduce the total number of members 

of the Armed Forces in the territory of the Republic of Korea 

(sec. 1251) ............................................................................................... 271 

Expansion of Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative (sec. 1252) ...... 272 

Modification of annual report on military and security developments 

involving the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1253) .......................... 273 

Report on resourcing United States defense requirements for the 

Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1254) .............................................................. 273 

Report on distributed lay-down of United States forces in the IndoPacific region (sec. 1255) ....................................................................... 274 

Sense of Senate on the United States-Japan alliance and defense 

cooperation (sec. 1256) ........................................................................... 274 

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the United States-Taiwan defense relationship (sec. 1257) ................................................................ 274 

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship (sec. 

1258) ....................................................................................................... 275 

Sense of Senate on security commitments to the Governments of 

Japan and the Republic of Korea and trilateral cooperation among 

the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (sec. 1259) ..... 275 

Sense of Senate on enhanced cooperation with Pacific Island countries to establish open-source intelligence fusion centers in the 

Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1260) .............................................................. 275 

Sense of Senate on enhancing defense and security cooperation with 

the Republic of Singapore (sec. 1261) .................................................. 275 

Subtitle F—Reports .......................................................................................... 276 

Report on cost imposition strategy (sec. 1271) ........................................ 276 

Subtitle G—Others Matters ............................................................................ 276 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281) ............................. 276 

Modifications of authorities relating to acquisition and cross-servicing 

agreements (sec. 1282) .......................................................................... 276 

Page

XXIV 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle G—Others Matters—Continued 

Modification of authority for United States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1283) .............................................................. 276 

United States-Israel cooperation to counter unmanned aerial systems 

(sec. 1284) ............................................................................................... 276 

Modification of initiative to support protection of national security 

academic researchers from undue influence and other security 

threats (sec. 1285) .................................................................................. 277 

Independent assessment of human rights situation in Honduras (sec. 

1286) ....................................................................................................... 277 

United States Central Command posture review (sec. 1287) ................ 277 

Reports on expenses incurred for in-flight refueling of Saudi coalition 

aircraft conducting missions relating to civil war in Yemen (sec. 

1288) ....................................................................................................... 278 

Sense of Senate on security concerns with respect to leasing arrangements for the Port of Haifa in Israel (sec. 1289) ................................. 278 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 278 

Contributions of allies and partners to costs of U.S. forces stationed 

overseas .................................................................................................. 278 

Cooperative research and development efforts of the United States 

and Israel ............................................................................................... 279 

Forward-deployed naval forces in Europe ............................................... 279 

Matters related to Bosnia and Herzegovina ........................................... 280 

Matters related to Kosovo ......................................................................... 281 

Protect Interests of Syrian Democratic Forces During U.S. Withdrawal ..................................................................................................... 281 

Support to the Kurdish Peshmerga ......................................................... 282 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 283 

Funding allocations for Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 

Reduction Program (sec. 1301) ............................................................. 283 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 283 

10-year risk planning for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 283 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 285 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 285 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) ............................................................ 285 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402) ....... 285 

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 

1403) ....................................................................................................... 285 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) ..................................................... 285 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) ........................................................ 285 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 285 

Modification of prohibition on acquisition of sensitive materials from 

non-allied foreign nations (sec. 1411) ................................................... 285 

Subtitle C—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 285 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1421) ............................................................................................... 285 

Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (sec. 1422) .................................................................................... 286 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 286 

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) ....................................................................................................... 286 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 286 

Air Force cash corpus for energy optimization ....................................... 286 

Contraceptive coverage parity under the TRICARE program ............... 286 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 287 

Armed Forces Retirement Home .............................................................. 287 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 289 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 289 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 289 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) .......................................... 289 

Procurement (sec. 1503) ............................................................................ 289 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) ....................... 289 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) .................................................. 289 

Page

XXV 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations—Continued 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) .................................................................. 289 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) ............................................................ 289 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1508) ....................................................................................................... 289 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 290 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 290 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 290 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 290 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 290 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 290 

Transfer from OCO to Base Procurement ............................................... 290 

Transfer OCO to Base RDT&E ................................................................ 290 

Marine Corps facility sustainment increase for disaster recovery ........ 291 

Air Force facility sustainment disaster recovery increase ..................... 291 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 291 

Iraq Security Cooperation ......................................................................... 292 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative .................................................... 292 

Transfer OCO to Base O&M .................................................................... 292 

Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund .......... 293 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 295 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 295 

Part I—United States Space Force ................................................................. 295 

United States Space Force (secs. 1601–1608) ......................................... 295 

Part II—Other Space Matters ......................................................................... 299 

Repeal of requirement to establish Space Command as a subordinate 

unified command of the United States Strategic Command (sec. 

1611) ....................................................................................................... 299 

Program to enhance and improve launch support and infrastructure 

(sec. 1612) ............................................................................................... 299 

Modification of enhancement of positioning, navigation, and timing 

capacity (sec. 1613) ................................................................................ 301 

Modification of term of Commander of Air Force Space Command 

(sec. 1614) ............................................................................................... 302 

Annual report on Space Command and Control program (sec. 1615) ... 302 

Requirements for phase 2 of acquisition strategy for National Security Space Launch program (sec. 1616) ................................................ 302 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence—Related Activities ....... 303 

Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (sec. 

1621) ....................................................................................................... 303 

Repeal of certain requirements relating to integration of Department 

of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 1622) ........................................................................................ 303 

Improving the onboarding methodology for certain intelligence personnel (sec. 1623) ................................................................................... 304 

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities on facilitating access to local criminal records historical data (sec. 1624) ..... 304 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace-Related Matters ....................................................... 304 

Reorientation of Big Data Platform program (sec. 1631) ....................... 304 

Zero-based review of Department of Defense cyber and information 

technology personnel (sec. 1632) .......................................................... 304 

Study on improving cyber career paths in the Navy (sec. 1633) ........... 305 

Framework to enhance cybersecurity of the United States defense 

industrial base (sec. 1634) ..................................................................... 305 

Role of Chief Information Officer in improving enterprise-wide cybersecurity (sec. 1635) ................................................................................ 306 

Quarterly assessments of the readiness of cyber forces (sec. 1636) ...... 307 

Control and analysis of Department of Defense data stolen through 

cyberspace (sec. 1637) ............................................................................ 308 

Accreditation standards and processes for cybersecurity and information technology products and services (sec. 1638) ............................... 309 

Extension of authorities for Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 

1639) ....................................................................................................... 309 

Page

XXVI 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace-Related Matters—Continued 

Modification of elements of assessment required for termination of 

dual-hat arrangement for Commander of the United States Cyber 

Command (sec. 1640) ............................................................................. 309 

Use of National Security Agency cybersecurity expertise to support 

acquisition of commercial cybersecurity products (sec. 1641) ............ 310 

Study on future cyber warfighting capabilities of Department of Defense (sec. 1642) ..................................................................................... 311 

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects (sec. 1643) ............... 311 

Expansion of authority for access and information relating to 

cyberattacks on Department of Defense operationally critical contractors (sec. 1644) ................................................................................. 312 

Briefing on memorandum of understanding relating to joint operational planning and control of cyber attacks of national scale 

(sec. 1645) ............................................................................................... 312 

Study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring and manning 

elements of the Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber organizations, 

Joint Mission Operations Centers, and Cyber Operations-Integrated Planning Elements (sec. 1646) .................................................. 312 

Cyber governance structures and Principal Cyber Advisors on military cyber force matters (sec. 1647) ..................................................... 313 

Designation of test networks for testing and accreditation of cybersecurity products and services (sec. 1648) .............................................. 313 

Consortia of universities to advise Secretary of Defense on cybersecurity matters (sec. 1649) ......................................................................... 313 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 313 

Modification of authorities relating to nuclear command, control, and 

communications system (sec. 1661) ...................................................... 313 

Expansion of officials required to conduct biennial assessments of 

delivery platforms for nuclear weapons and nuclear command and 

control system (sec. 1662) ..................................................................... 314 

Conforming amendment to Council on Oversight of the National 

Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (sec. 

1663) ....................................................................................................... 314 

Prohibition on reduction of the intercontinental ballistic missiles of 

the United States (sec. 1664) ................................................................ 314 

Briefing on long-range standoff weapon and sea-launched cruise missile (sec. 1665) ........................................................................................ 314 

Sense of the Senate on industrial base for Ground-Based Strategic 

Deterrent program (sec. 1666) .............................................................. 314 

Sense of the Senate on nuclear deterrence commitments of the 

United States (sec. 1667) ...................................................................... 315 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 315 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative 

missile defense program co-development and co-production (sec. 

1671) ....................................................................................................... 315 

Expansion of national missile defense policy and program redesignation (sec. 1672) ....................................................................................... 316 

Acceleration of the deployment of persistent space-based sensor architecture (sec. 1673) ............................................................................. 316 

Nonstandard acquisition processes of Missile Defense Agency (sec. 

1674) ....................................................................................................... 317 

Plan for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (sec. 1675) .................................... 317 

Report on improving ground-based midcourse defense element of ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1676) .............................................. 317 

Sense of the Senate on recent Missile Defense Agency tests (sec. 

1677) ....................................................................................................... 317 

Sense of the Senate on missile defense technology development priorities (sec. 1678) ....................................................................................... 317 

Publication of environmental impact statement prepared for certain 

potential future missile defense sites (sec. 1679) ................................ 318 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 318 

Matters relating to military operations in the information environment (sec. 1681) ..................................................................................... 318 

Page

XXVII 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle F—Other Matters—Continued 

Extension of authorization for protection of certain facilities and 

assets from unmanned aircraft (sec. 1682) .......................................... 318 

Hard and deeply buried targets (sec. 1683) ............................................ 318 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 319 

Acquisition plan for Space Command and Control program ................. 319 

Addressing the Department of Defense’s cyber red team 

vulnerabilities ........................................................................................ 319 

Airborne Launch Control System sustainment ...................................... 320 

Assessment of replacement of E–4B and E–6 aircraft ........................... 320 

Assessment of the cybersecurity of Department of Defense classified 

networks ................................................................................................. 320 

Briefing on integration of commercial satellite communications capabilities ..................................................................................................... 321 

Briefing on Joint Cyber Command and Control program ...................... 321 

Briefings on the status of replacement progress of the mobile ground 

systems supporting the Space Based Infrared Satellite system ........ 322 

Comptroller General assessment of cyber infrastructure programs ..... 322 

Comptroller General report on readiness of the nuclear command, 

control, and communications system ................................................... 323 

Comptroller General study on weapon system cybersecurity ................ 323 

Coordination of election cybersecurity efforts ......................................... 324 

Cybersecurity of commercial clouds used by Department of Defense ... 325 

Cybersecurity of industrial control systems ............................................ 325 

Declassification of near-peer adversaries’ military capabilities ............ 326 

Department of Defense endpoint management program ....................... 327 

Foreign online influence operations ......................................................... 327 

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system enhancements ..................... 328 

Independent evaluation of Air Force space command and control 

enterprise program ................................................................................ 328 

Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment system and 

multi-domain sensors ............................................................................ 329 

Light Detection and Ranging capabilities ............................................... 329 

Low Power Laser Demonstrator program ............................................... 329 

National Security Agency Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence ........ 330 

Nuclear Posture Review implementation ................................................ 331 

Pilot program authority to enhance cybersecurity and resiliency of 

critical infrastructure ............................................................................ 331 

Reducing barriers to service in U.S. Space Force ................................... 331 

Report on Mobile User Objective System ................................................ 332 

Report on using existing intelligence sensors for ballistic missile defense ........................................................................................................ 332 

Security and resiliency of decision-making technologies ....................... 333 

Social network analysis for counterterrorism ......................................... 333 

Software defined networking and network and cybersecurity orchestration ..................................................................................................... 333 

Space Fence Site 2 .................................................................................... 334 

Space industrial base of the People’s Republic of China ....................... 335 

Status of Military Ground User Equipment receivers ........................... 335 

Tactically responsive space launch operations ........................................ 336 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense transition and requirements .... 336 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 339 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 339 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 339 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 339 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 340 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 341 

Summary .................................................................................................... 341 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 341 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 341 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 341 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 341 

Page

XXVIII 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 343 

Summary .................................................................................................... 343 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 343 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 343 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 343 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 343 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 345 

Summary .................................................................................................... 345 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 345 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 345 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 345 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 345 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 

(sec. 2305) ............................................................................................... 346 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project 

(sec. 2306) ............................................................................................... 346 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 project 

(sec. 2307) ............................................................................................... 346 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 projects 

(sec. 2308) ............................................................................................... 346 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 projects 

(sec. 2309) ............................................................................................... 347 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 349 

Summary .................................................................................................... 349 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 349 

Authorized Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program 

projects (sec. 2402) ................................................................................. 349 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 349 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS .................................................... 351 

Summary .................................................................................................... 351 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................... 351 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 351 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 351 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions ......................................... 351 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) ................... 351 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 353 

Summary .................................................................................................... 353 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 353 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 353 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 353 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 353 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 354 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 354 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 355 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 355 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 355 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ...................................................................... 355 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................... 357 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program .................................................. 357 

Military installation resilience plans and projects of Department of 

Defense (sec. 2801) ................................................................................ 357 

Page

XXIX 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program—Continued 

Prohibition on use of funds to reduce air base resiliency or demolish 

protected aircraft shelters in the European theater without creating a similar protection from attack (sec. 2802) .............................. 357 

Prohibition on use of funds to close or return to the host nation 

any existing air base (sec. 2803) ........................................................... 357 

Increased authority for certain unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2804) ......................................................................... 357 

Technical corrections and improvements to installation resilience 

(sec. 2805) ............................................................................................... 358 

Subtitle B—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 358 

Release of interests retained in Camp Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, 

for use of such land as a veterans cemetery (sec. 2811) ..................... 358 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain parcels of Federal 

land in Arlington, Virginia (sec. 2812) ................................................. 358 

Modification of requirements relating to land acquisition in Arlington 

County, Virginia (sec. 2813) .................................................................. 358 

White Sands Missile Range Land Enhancements (sec. 2814) ............... 358 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 359 

Equal treatment of insured depository institutions and credit unions 

operating on military installations (sec. 2821) .................................... 359 

Expansion of temporary authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain construction, maintenance, and repair projects 

mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait military forces (sec. 2822) ............................................................................ 359 

Designation of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base (sec. 

2823) ....................................................................................................... 359 

Prohibition on use of funds to privatize temporary lodging on installations of Department of Defense (sec. 2824) ...................................... 360 

Pilot program to extend service life of roads and runways under 

the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the military departments (sec. 

2825) ....................................................................................................... 360 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 360 

Briefing on laboratory military construction .......................................... 360 

Comptroller General review of privatized lodging program .................. 360 

Defense Access Roads ............................................................................... 361 

Department of Defense disaster recovery ............................................... 362 

Excess storage capacity at Army National Guard installations ............ 362 

Firearms training infrastructure ............................................................. 363 

Long-term modernization of Lincoln Laboratory .................................... 363 

Report on Base Realignment Closure costs ............................................. 364 

Report on condition of facilities at Senior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps units at minority-serving institutions ....................................... 364 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 367 

Summary .................................................................................................... 367 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 367 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 367 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2903) ....................................................................................................... 367 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2904) ................................................................................. 367 

Disaster recovery projects (sec. 2905) ...................................................... 367 

Replenishment of certain military construction funds (sec. 2906) ........ 368 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2907) ............................................ 368 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REFORM .................... 369 

Definitions (sec. 3001) ............................................................................... 369 

Subtitle A—Accountability and Oversight ..................................................... 369 

Tenant bill of rights for privatized military housing (sec. 3011) ........... 369 

Designation of Chief Housing Officer for privatized military housing 

(sec. 3012) ............................................................................................... 369 

Command oversight of military privatized housing as element of 

performance evaluations (sec. 3013) .................................................... 370 

Page

XXX 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REFORM—Continued 

Subtitle A—Accountability and Oversight—Continued 

Consideration of history of landlord in contract renewal process for 

privatized military housing (sec. 3014) ................................................ 370 

Treatment of breach of contract for privatized military housing (sec. 

3015) ....................................................................................................... 370 

Uniform code of basic standards for privatized military housing and 

plan to conduct inspections and assessments (sec. 3016) ................... 371 

Repeal of supplemental payments to lessors and requirement for 

use of funds in connection with the Military Housing Privatization 

Initiative (sec. 3017) .............................................................................. 371 

Standard for common credentials for health and environmental inspectors of privatized military housing (sec. 3018) ............................. 372 

Improvement of privatized military housing (sec. 3019) ........................ 372 

Access to maintenance work order system of landlords of privatized 

military housing (sec. 3020) .................................................................. 372 

Access by tenants of privatized military housing to work order system of landlord (sec. 3021) .................................................................... 373 

Subtitle B—Prioritizing Families .................................................................... 373 

Dispute resolution process for landlord-tenant disputes regarding 

privatized military housing and requests to withhold payments 

(sec. 3031) ............................................................................................... 373 

Suspension of Resident Energy Conservation Program (sec. 3032) ...... 373 

Access by tenants to historical maintenance information for 

privatized military housing (sec. 3033) ................................................ 374 

Prohibition on use of call centers outside the United States for maintenance calls by tenants of privatized military housing (sec. 3034) .. 374 

Radon testing for privatized military housing (sec. 3035) ..................... 374 

Expansion of windows covered by requirement to use window fall 

prevention devices in privatized military housing (sec. 3036) ........... 374 

Requirements relating to move out and maintenance with respect 

to privatized military housing (sec. 3037) ........................................... 374 

Subtitle C—Long-Term Quality Assurance .................................................... 375 

Development of standardized documentation, templates, and forms 

for privatized military housing (sec. 3041) .......................................... 375 

Council on privatized military housing (sec. 3042) ................................ 375 

Requirements relating to management of privatized military housing 

(sec. 3043) ............................................................................................... 375 

Requirements relating to contracts for privatized military housing 

(sec. 3044) ............................................................................................... 376 

Withholding of incentive fees for landlords of privatized military 

housing for failure to remedy a health or environmental hazard 

(sec. 3045) ............................................................................................... 376 

Expansion of direct hire authority for Department of Defense for 

childcare services providers for Department child development centers to include direct hire authority for installation military housing office personnel (sec. 3046) ............................................................. 377 

Plan on establishment of Department of Defense jurisdiction over 

off-base privatized military housing (sec. 3047) .................................. 377 

Subtitle D—Other Housing Matters ............................................................... 377 

Lead-based paint testing and reporting (sec. 3051) ............................... 377 

Satisfaction survey for tenants of military housing (sec. 3052) ............ 377 

Information on legal services provided to members of the Armed 

Forces harmed by health or environmental hazards at military 

housing (sec. 3053) ................................................................................. 378 

Mitigation of risks posed by certain items in military family housing 

units (sec. 3054) ..................................................................................... 378 

Technical correction to certain payments for lessors of privatized 

military housing (sec. 3055) .................................................................. 378 

Pilot program to build and monitor use of single family homes (sec. 

3056) ....................................................................................................... 378 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 378 

Compliance with housing laws ................................................................. 378 

Comptroller General review of Basic Allowance for Housing rate 

determination process ........................................................................... 379 

Consideration of privatized housing conditions in evaluation of commanders and senior enlisted personnel ............................................... 380 

Page

XXXI 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REFORM—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Plan for management of privatized military housing units if a contract relating to those housing units is rescinded ............................... 380 

Referral to Department of Justice of allegations of military housing 

fraud ....................................................................................................... 381 

Report on service training for installation commanders ........................ 381 

Review of Air Force Civil Engineer Center organizational structure ... 382 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 383 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 383 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs and Authorizations ...................... 383 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 383 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 383 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 383 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) ........................................................................ 383 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 383 

Technical corrections to National Nuclear Security Administration 

Act and Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3111) ................................. 383 

National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System (sec. 

3112) ....................................................................................................... 383 

Contracting, program management, scientific, engineering, and technical positions at National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 

3113) ....................................................................................................... 384 

Prohibition on use of laboratory-directed research and development 

funds for general and administrative overhead costs (sec. 3114) ...... 384 

Prohibition on use of funds for advanced naval nuclear fuel system 

based on low-enriched uranium (sec. 3115) ......................................... 384 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports ........................................................................ 385 

Estimation of costs of meeting defense environmental cleanup milestones required by consent orders (sec. 3121) ..................................... 385 

Extension of suspension of certain assessments relating to nuclear 

weapons stockpile (sec. 3122) ............................................................... 385 

Repeal of requirement for review relating to enhanced procurement 

authority (sec. 3123) .............................................................................. 385 

Determination of effect of treaty obligations with respect to producing 

tritium (sec. 3124) .................................................................................. 385 

Assessment of high energy density physics (sec. 3125) .......................... 385 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 386 

Federal salaries ......................................................................................... 386 

Technology maturation initiatives ........................................................... 386 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program .......................................................... 386 

Nonproliferation Stewardship Program .................................................. 386 

Emergency Operations .............................................................................. 387 

Enterprise Assessments ............................................................................ 387 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ............................................................. 387 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 388 

Assessment of lithium sustainment program and production project .. 388 

Briefing on ability to meet requirements for plutonium pit production .......................................................................................................... 388 

Comptroller General review of applicability of Section 809 Panel 

recommendations to the Department of Energy ................................. 389 

Comptroller General review of DOE Order 140.1 .................................. 390 

Comptroller General study of radioactive waste at West Valley, New 

York ........................................................................................................ 390 

Comptroller General to continue ongoing evaluation of the Hanford 

Waste Treatment Plant ......................................................................... 391 

Plutonium science and metallurgy ........................................................... 391 

Report on the Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management . 391 

Report on the Department of Energy’s tank closures ............................ 392 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 393 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 393 

Improvement of management and organization of Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3202) ....................................................... 393 

Membership of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3203) .... 394 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 395 

Page

XXXII 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION—Continued 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 395 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 397 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 397 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2020 ........................................................................................................... 399 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 409 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 410 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 456 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 477 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 478 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 517 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 521 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 522 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 544 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 557 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 558 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 559 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 561 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 562 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 566 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 569 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 570 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4602) . 586 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 591 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701) ............. 592 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 606 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 606 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 606 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 609 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 609 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 609 

Calendar No. 114 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 116–48 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 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 

JUNE 11, 2019.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. INHOFE, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1790] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 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 2020; 

(2) Authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2020; 

(3) Authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2020; 

(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 2020; and 

2 

(7) Authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2020. 

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW 

For the past 58 consecutive years, Congress has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to ‘‘provide for the common defense’’ by 

passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This annual legislation authorizes funding and provides authorities for the 

U.S. military and other critical national defense priorities, and ensures our troops have what they need to defend our nation. On 

May 22, 2019, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly, 25–2, to advance the National Defense Authorization 

Act of Fiscal Year 2020 to the Senate floor and keep our troops 

safe. 

The committee takes seriously its obligation to national security 

as well as to our men and women in uniform and their families, 

who represent the best of our country. The NDAA acknowledges 

their service and sacrifice, and seeks to improve the quality of life 

for those who serve. 

The committee markup of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2020, supports a total of $750 billion for national defense. The committee believes this authorization is necessary to implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) 

and to compete, deter, and win in an era of long-term strategic 

competition. 

The committee markup: 

• Authorizes critical funding for the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to provide resources needed by combatant commands to 

implement the 2018 NDS and compete, deter, and win in an 

era of long-term strategic competition. 

• Ensures the Military Services have the personnel, equipment, training, and organizational structure to accelerate 

measurable readiness recovery across the full range of assigned missions. 

• 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 Reserve), and 

their families, including by reforming privatized on-base housing. 

• Maintains maritime and air superiority by focusing on continuous fifth generation procurement growth, increasing the 

procurement of advanced munitions, and addressing critical deficiencies in land forces, especially long-range precision fires 

and air and missile defense. 

• Augments the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces and the 

security forces of allied and friendly nations to counter and defeat near-peer adversaries, violent extremist organizations, and 

other shared threats to regional security, U.S. interests, and 

the U.S. homeland. 

• Enhances deterrence by recapitalizing and modernizing 

the U.S. nuclear triad; ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, delivery systems, and infrastructure; increasing capability in theater and homeland missile defense; and strengthening nonproliferation programs. 

3 

• Drives DOD investment in next-generation operational capabilities and advanced technologies that will ensure U.S. military dominance, while protecting and strengthening our National Security Innovation Base. • Improves the ability of our Armed Forces to counter 

threats and promote U.S. freedom of action in the information 

domain, including space, cyber, and electronic warfare. • Strengthens existing U.S. alliances and partnerships, 

builds mutually beneficial new partnerships, and leverages opportunities in international cooperation to ensure U.S. success 

in competition and conflict against other great powers. • Implements robust oversight of past year’s reforms of acquisition enterprise organizations, policies, and programs, 

while authorizing more diverse and flexible contracting approaches that enable timely contract awards. • Ensures proper stewardship and accountability for taxpayer dollars by promoting aggressive review of DOD management policies, extract efficiencies through improved business 

practices and/or the termination of unnecessary, outdated, or 

redundant programs, and exercising systematic oversight of 

the defense audit. 

Preamble to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 

The world is more unstable and dangerous than it has been in 

recent memory. Our margin of military supremacy has eroded and 

is undermined by new threats from strategic competitors like 

China and Russia. At the same time, we are confronting persistent 

threats from North Korea, Iran, and terrorist organizations. Rapid 

technological advances have fundamentally altered the nature of 

warfare, and years of sustained armed conflict, underfunding, and 

budgetary instability have harmed our military readiness and 

dulled our combat edge. Our Congressional duty to provide for the 

security of our nation, protect our values, and support those who 

defend them is all the more important as the tide of war has risen 

rather than receded. We must pivot to meet the needs of a nation 

increasingly at risk. 

The National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the NDS Commission 

report established a comprehensive roadmap to bolster our national 

security in light of this new challenge of strategic competition. Last 

year’s defense authorization legislation, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, was the first 

NDAA to support the implementation of this strategy, resulting in 

gains in readiness and improved capabilities. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 keeps our Armed Forces on 

that trajectory, and builds on the recognition of this new realitystrengthening our force, investing in innovation, and improving the 

combat effectiveness of the DOD. 

The committee continues to prioritize the timely passage of this 

legislation and predictable funding, completing its work on the fiscal year 2020 NDAA just over two months after receiving the administration’s budget request. Our military leaders have repeatedly 

stated that stable, on-time, and adequate funding is key to implementing the recommendations of the NDS Commission report. The 

report serves to provide sharp guideposts to outfitting our Armed 

4 

Forces with the resources and authorities they need to advance 

U.S. national security interests. 

However, timely and sufficient funding alone will not fix all of 

our security problems. We must establish clear priorities and reinforce them with strategic investments to pursue urgent change at 

significant scale. Difficult choices must be made and priorities established, particularly related to roles and missions, force employment, and resource allocation. 

With the NDS and NDS Commission Report as the framework, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 advances the following priorities: 

(1) First, the NDAA invests in a lethal, ready all-volunteer force. 

The committee’s top priority remains supporting the 2.15 million 

men and women who make up our all-volunteer force, particularly 

those troops in harm’s way. The NDAA ensures that our 

warfighters will not only be equipped with the best equipment and 

munitions, but also that our military infrastructure supports the 

mission and a stable quality of life for service members and their 

families. In particular, the bill profoundly changes how on-base 

privatized housing is managed, increasing accountability to our 

military families, and guaranteeing future economic viability for 

the program. As critical initiatives, the legislation also increases 

employment opportunities for military spouses and improves the 

availability of child care on installations. 

(2) Second, the NDAA works to restore our combat advantage 

through modernization, innovation, and cooperation. Our military 

superiority can no longer be taken for granted and is not guaranteed. For too many years, we assumed our equipment was better 

than everyone else’s-but it’s simply not true. Without increased investment, we risk falling behind, losing our ability to successfully 

deter aggression from strategic competitors, and inflicting lasting 

damage to our national security. To meet urgent needs across operating domains, the NDAA aligns service resources with the NDScontinuing to rebuild readiness, optimizing the force for innovation 

and effectiveness, and re-establishing warfighting dominance. 

Therefore, the NDAA authorizes investments in critical equipment, 

weapons, and missile defense platforms to improve munitions that 

enhance lethality. It modernizes key capabilities and increases preparedness for war. 

This includes maintaining a safe, secure, sustainable, and credible nuclear deterrent-updating and securing our stockpile and infrastructure to prevent nuclear warfare and ensure nuclear weapons do not end up in the hands of malign actors. No one should 

doubt the capability or political will of the United States. 

The NDAA passed by the committee drives innovation by authorizing funds and implementing policies to advance technology development and next-generation capabilities, including artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and quantum computing. These investments will ensure our military is not fighting tomorrow’s wars 

with yesterday’s weapons and equipment. 

As the global security dynamics shift, warfare has also expanded 

to new frontiers. To meet growing threats in the space domain, the 

NDAA establishes a U.S. Space Force as a new component of the 

Air Force. Our adversaries have Space Forces—we are behind. This 

new force will focus on cultivating a space warfighting ethos, unify 

5 

command of space operations and activities, and improve acquisition policies for space programs and systems, 

Also a new frontier, the NDAA includes numerous provisions to 

advance the DOD’s cybersecurity strategy and address our cyber 

warfighting capabilities. To reinforce our military might, the NDAA 

supports programs and policies that will cultivate key alliances and 

partnerships. These relationships will help maintain a favorable 

balance of power against near-peer adversaries and counter other 

growing threats. 

(3) Finally, the NDAA continues efforts to improve effectiveness 

and efficiency within the Pentagon. The DOD’s business operations 

provide the foundation for a responsive and innovative military. 

Building upon several years of reform, the NDAA continues to 

streamline operations-continuing acquisition policy reform, recalibrating contract reform, and strengthening program oversight. A 

more efficient bureaucracy will better utilize the full value of every 

taxpayer dollar spent on defense. 

With the National Defense Strategy Commission Report as a 

framework, the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization 

Act keeps our Armed Forces on the trajectory established last yearrebuilding readiness, improving lethality, investing in innovation, 

and reforming the DOD. These efforts will reassert our quantitative and qualitative military advantage and revitalize American 

military power and supremacy in the new landscape of global competition. 

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). 

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 2020 was $741.6 billion. Of this 

amount, $544.6 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $23.2 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE), and $173.8 

billion was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $741.6 billion in fiscal year 2020, including $642.5 billion for 

base DOD programs, $23.2 billion for national security programs in 

the DOE, and $75.9 billion for OCO. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2020 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2020 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 

6 

items that are not in the jurisdiction of the defense committees or 

are already authorized. 

(7) 

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 

Sense of Senate on Army’s approach to capability drops 1 

and 2 of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army 

program (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Sense of the Senate on the Army’s approach to capability drops one 

and two of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army program. 

Authority of the Secretary of the Army to waive certain limitations related to Distributed Common Ground SystemArmy Increment 1 (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 113(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) by striking ‘‘Secretary of Defense’’ 

and inserting ‘‘Secretary of the Army.’’ 

The waiver process for capability drops into the Distributed Common Ground System-Army system architecture is overly time-consuming. Capability drop one required over 12 months of processing 

time for approval. These delays slow progress and ultimately degrade the warfighter’s ability to analyze and act on time-sensitive 

intelligence. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that the waiver authority 

be given to the Secretary of the Army for faster processing and approval. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Modification of prohibition on availability of funds for Navy 

port waterborne security barriers (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 130 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to extend the prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port waterborne security barVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
8 

riers through fiscal year 2020 and would require the Secretary of 

the Navy to notify the congressional defense committees if exigent 

circumstances, under which an exception is granted, are deemed to 

exist. 

Capabilities based assessment for naval vessels that carry 

fixed-wing aircraft (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a capabilities-based assessment to 

clarify the future requirements for naval vessels that carry fixedwing aircraft. 

The committee notes that the budget request’s proposal to retire 

the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN–75) early would yield a force with 

10 or fewer aircraft carriers for more than 20 years. The budget request also includes a 7-year gap until the funding of the next amphibious assault ship, LHA–9, which will likely result in a production break. The committee is concerned that both the CVN–75 and 

LHA–9 proposals are contrary to current Navy force structure requirements and will result in significant negative impacts for the 

shipbuilding industrial base. 

The committee also notes that the Under Secretary of the Navy stated in February 2019, ‘‘If $13 billion is unaffordable . . . what’s 

the next carrier look like? Is it going to be as advanced as [the USS 

Gerald R. Ford] or is it going to be smaller? . . . We don’t know 

the answers to that, but we’re looking at those.’’ 

The committee also notes that all three future fleet platform architecture studies required by section 1067 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) recommended that the Navy pursue a class of aircraft carriers smaller 

than the Ford-class. The committee believes that smaller aircraft 

carriers could both increase aircraft carrier capacity and provide a 

more efficient means to conduct a range of missions with lower sortie requirements, including support for amphibious operations. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

consult the fleet architecture studies, as well as the report on alternative aircraft carrier options required by section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 

114–92), and initiate a capabilities-based assessment to begin the 

process of identifying requirements for the naval vessels that will 

carry fixed-wing aircraft following CVN–81 and LHA–9. 

Ford-class aircraft carrier cost limitation baselines (sec. 

123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

Ford-class aircraft carrier cost limitation baselines in title 10, 

United States Code, and repeal a superseded provision. 

The committee notes that cost limitation baselines for Ford-class 

aircraft carriers were first enacted in section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). These cost limitation baselines have been amended in public law three times to account for cost estimate adjustments. The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Navy 

raised the cost limitation baseline for the CVN–78 to $13.0 billion 

in May 2018. 

9 

The committee believes that Ford-class cost limitation baselines 

should now be adjusted to reflect the Navy’s latest cost estimates 

for each of the four ships in the class and that the cost limitation 

baseline for each such ship should be codified in title 10, United 

States Code, due to the long-term nature of aircraft carrier construction and the benefits of greater clarity in oversight requirements. 

The provision therefore would: (1) Update the cost limitation 

baseline for each Ford-class aircraft carrier; (2) Require notification 

of the congressional defense committees at least 30 days prior to 

the Secretary of the Navy’s adjusting a limitation amount; (3) 

Eliminate adjustments that would be based on non-recurring engineering changes that are no longer applicable; and (4) Eliminate 

reporting requirements related to CVN–79, which would be maintained elsewhere. 

Design and construction of amphibious transport dock designated LPD–31 (sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a contract for design and construction of the amphibious transport dock 

designated LPD–31. 

The committee notes that in testimony before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee on April 7, 2019, the Secretary of the Navy 

and Chief of Naval Operations supported incremental funding authority for LPD–31. 

LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program (sec. 

125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a contract for design and construction of the LHA replacement ship designated LHA–9. 

The committee notes that in testimony before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee on April 7, 2019, the Secretary of the Navy 

and Chief of Naval Operations supported incremental funding authority for LHA–9. 

The provision would also repeal section 125 of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364). 

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 that the Navy force structure assessment 

requirement and LCS acquisition strategy total procurement quantity of 32 LCSs was met in fiscal year 2018. Three additional LCSs 

were authorized and appropriated by the Congress in fiscal year 

2019. 

10 

Accordingly, the provision would require that, before further LCS 

procurement, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment certify to the congressional defense committees 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. 

Limitation on the next new class of Navy large surface combatants (sec. 127) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

design changes identified during the full duration of the combat 

system ship qualification trials and operational test periods of the 

first Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the Flight III configuration be 

incorporated prior to Milestone B approval for the next new class 

of Navy large surface combatants. 

The provision would also require that the final results of test 

programs of engineering development models or prototypes be incorporated into the Navy large surface combatant program prior to 

Milestone B approval. 

Refueling and complex overhauls of the USS John C. Stennis and USS Harry S. Truman (sec. 128) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to carry out the nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN–74) and USS 

Harry S. Truman (CVN–75). 

The provision would also authorize the use of incremental funding for a period not to exceed 6 years after advance procurement 

funds for each nuclear refueling and complex overhaul effort are 

first obligated. 

The committee notes that in testimony before the Armed Services 

Committee of the Senate on March 14, 2019, the Acting Secretary 

of Defense stated, ‘‘[The proposal not to refuel the USS Harry S. 

Truman] represents some of the strategic choices that we’ve made 

in this year’s budget. . . . The funds we freed up from making 

these decisions are invested in the future force.’’ The committee understands that this desired future force includes offensively armed 

unmanned or optionally-manned surface vessels, for which the 

budget request includes more than $2.7 billion to procure in fiscal 

years 2020 through 2024. 

While recognizing the need to modernize the U.S. military to 

support the National Defense Strategy, the committee has not received adequate justification to support a shift in funding from refueling an aircraft carrier to procuring unproven systems. Specifically, the committee is unaware of: a new joint warfighting plan 

that concluded that the Nation needs one fewer aircraft carrier; 

proven substitute capabilities for the combat power and reach of 

the Truman and its air wing; unmanned surface and undersea systems proven to be operationally effective and suitable in the threat 

environment; or a change in the Chief of Naval Operations’ requirement for 12 aircraft carriers. 

11 

The committee is also unaware of administration proposals to 

change section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, which requires 

the Navy to maintain not fewer than 11 operational aircraft carriers, or section 1025 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), which made it the policy of 

the United States to achieve a 355-ship Navy comprised of the ‘‘optimal mix’’ of ships as soon as practicable. The ‘‘optimal mix’’ is defined as the mix of ships in the Navy’s 355-ship requirement, including 12 aircraft carriers. 

The committee also notes that the Department of Defense estimates that not refueling the Truman would save approximately 

$3.5 billion plus annual operating costs. The committee is unclear 

as to how these savings compare to the development, procurement, 

and annual operating costs of the systems that are envisioned to 

provide equivalent or better capability as compared to the Truman 

and its air wing. The committee is also unaware of the schedule 

necessary to field such systems. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy’s ‘‘Report to 

Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of 

Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020’’ states, ‘‘Unmanned and optionally-manned systems are not accounted for in the overall battle 

force[.] . . . The physical challenges of extended operations at sea 

across the spectrum of competition and conflict, the concepts of operations for these platforms, and the policy challenges associated 

with employing deadly force from autonomous vehicles must be 

well understood prior to replacing accountable battle force ships.’’ 

The committee does not believe that this standard has been met regarding the budget request’s Truman proposal. 

Report on carrier wing composition (sec. 129) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than May 1, 2020, on the optimal composition of the carrier air wing in 2030 and 2040, as well as alternative force design concepts. The provision would also require the 

Secretary to provide a briefing on the report no later than March 

1, 2020, to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee is concerned, based on a number of independent 

analyses, that the Navy’s current stated goal of a 50/50 mix of 4th 

and 5th generation aircraft for the future carrier air wing will not 

be sufficient to meet the requirements of the National Defense 

Strategy. 

Therefore, the report required by this provision would include: 

(1) Analysis and justification used to reach the 50/50 mix of 4th 

and 5th generation aircraft for 2030; (2) Analysis and justification 

for the optimal mix of carrier aircraft for 2040; and (3) A plan for 

incorporating unmanned aerial vehicles and associated communication capabilities to effectively implement the future force design. 

12 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Requirement to align Air Force fighter force structure with 

National Defense Strategy and reports (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to align the fighter force structure acquisition strategy with the results of the independent studies required 

by section 1064 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and to transmit the new strategy in a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 1, 2020. The committee is concerned that the Air 

Force’s current fighter force structure acquisition strategy does not 

comport with multiple reports required by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 nor the service’s own stated 

requirements to meet the National Defense Strategy. The provision 

would prohibit the Air Force’s deviation from this strategy in its acquisition programs and related force structure until the Secretary 

of the Air Force receives a waiver and justification from the Secretary of Defense and until 30 days after notifying the congressional defense committees of the proposed deviation. 

Requirement to establish the use of an Agile DevOps software development solution as an alternative for Joint 

Strike Fighter Autonomic Logistics Information System 

(sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish an agile software development activity as an alternative for the F–35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS). The committee is encouraged by the ongoing 

efforts to incorporate agile software development into the ALIS programs of record (ALIS-next and Madhatter) while also maintaining 

traditional development in order to avoid risk to the overall program timeline. The provision would separate the budget lines and 

require a competitive analysis of the efforts between ALIS, ALISnext, and Madhatter by the Secretary of Defense in order to evaluate transition opportunities and timelines. 

Finally, the provision would direct the Secretary of the Defense, 

in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the competitive 

analysis no later than September 30, 2020. 

Report on feasibility of multiyear contract for procurement 

of JASSM–ER missiles (sec. 143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Air Force to produce and submit a report assessing the feasibility 

of entering into a multi-year contract for the procurement of the 

JASSM–ER. The provision would require the Air Force to examine 

multiple multi-year contract scenarios, including one in which the 

Air Force would procure an annual quantity of 550 missiles for 5 

years. The committee notes that the Air Force requirement for the 

JASSM–ER has recently increased. Further, the industrial base 

has recently expanded the capacity of its production facility to 550 

missiles per year in order to meet the increased requirements of 

the Air Force. 

13 

The committee notes that multi-year contracts can provide significant cost savings and stability in funding over multiple years. 

Therefore, the report would include assessments of the impacts on: 

the cost of the missile, the industrial base, the Long Range AntiShip Missile, and future development or modification requirements 

for the JASSM–ER. 

Air Force aggressor squadron modernization (sec. 144) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees on Air Force aggressor squadron modernization. 

Air Force plan for the Combat Rescue Helicopter fielding 

(sec. 145) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Air Force to provide a plan on the Combat Rescue Helicopter fielding. 

Military type certification for AT–6 and A–29 light attack experimentation aircraft (sec. 146) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a Military Type Certification 

for AT–6 and A–29 Light Attack Experimentation Aircraft. 

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

Limitation on availability of funds for communication systems lacking certain resiliency features (sec. 151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit funding of any current or future Department of Defense (DOD) communications programs of record that do not meet certain resiliency requirements. The committee is concerned that, in the face of great 

power competition, the DOD has not assured servicemembers’ ability to communicate and share data securely and consistently in a 

contested environment. 

The committee defines these program resiliency requirements as 

features that: 1) Deny geo-location of a transmission that would 

allow enemy targeting of the force; 2) Securely communicate classified information in a jamming environment of like-echelon forces; 

and 3) Utilize a waveform that is made available in the DOD 

Waveform Information Repository. 

The committee understands that there may be very limited cases 

where DOD communications equipment will be used to communicate in a garrison or peacetime situation and not in combat environments. Therefore, the provision would allow the Secretaries of 

the military departments to waive the aforementioned requirements for a system with a certification that the system does not require resiliency due to its expected use. 

F–35 sustainment cost (sec. 152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

F–35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide quarterly sustainment 

cost data, as part of the JPO quarterly briefings to the congresVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
14 

sional defense committees. The committee is concerned that the 

Department of Defense is making force structure decisions based 

on sustainment cost data that do not easily provide the user with 

valid comparable metrics. Therefore, the requested information 

should compare, in an itemized format, the cost of legacy aircraft 

to that of the F–35 program based on a standardized set of criteria. 

The provision also requires the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition and Sustainment to: (1) Develop a plan for achieving 

significant reductions in the costs to operate and maintain the F– 

35 aircraft; (2) Submit a report on that plan; and (3) Provide quarterly updates on the progress of implementing the plan. 

Economic order quantity contracting authority for F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 153) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to award F–35 contracts to procure material 

and equipment in economic order quantities for fiscal year 2021 

(Lot 15) through fiscal year 2023 (Lot 17). The committee supports 

the Department of Defense’s planning for a multi-year procurement 

for production Lots 15, 16, and 17. 

Repeal of tactical unmanned vehicle common data link requirement (sec. 154) 

The committee recommends a provision that would strike section 

141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163). The committee is concerned that the standards set in the section 141 requirement do not keep pace with the 

current high threat environment and is thus out of step with the 

National Defense Strategy. The repeal would help the Services 

form an overall architecture for communications that is more resilient and allows for the inclusion and connection of manned and unmanned aircraft and weapons. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Utility fixed wing aircraft 

The budget request included $16.0 million in line number 2 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for utility fixed wing aircraft. 

The committee notes that line number 2 of APA for the remainder of the future years defense program contains no funding for the 

program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.0 million 

in line number 2 of APA for the procurement of utility fixed wing 

aircraft. 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build 

The budget request included $0.0 million in line number 10 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH–64 Apache Block IIIB 

New Build. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and equip both the active component and the Army National Guard with the most advanced and capable attack heliVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
15 

copters in support of the National Defense Strategy. Consequently, 

the Army should field the Block IIIB aircraft as quickly as possible 

across the 24 attack battalions in the active component and the 

Army National Guard. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $105.0 million in line number 10 of APA for the procurement of three AH– 

64 Apache Block IIIB New Build aircraft. 

UH–60M Blackhawk 

The budget request included $1.4 billion in line number 12 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for 73 UH–60M Blackhawk aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

field the most advanced and capable utility helicopters in support 

of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the utility helicopter industrial base and the dramatic 

downturn in production of UH–60M aircraft through the proposed 

future years defense program. Further, the committee believes that 

the Army should take advantage of the current multiyear contract 

that will expire in fiscal year 2021 and more equitably distribute 

procurement to limit a steep production cut from fiscal year 2020 

to fiscal year 2021. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 million for 7 active component aircraft in line number 12 of APA for 

the procurement of UH–60M aircraft. 

UH–60V Conversion 

The budget request included $169.2 million in line number 14 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for UH–60 Blackhawk L and V 

Models. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

field the most advanced and capable utility helicopters for the 

Army National Guard in support of the National Defense Strategy. 

As such, the Army should accelerate the conversion of Blackhawks 

to the upgraded V model, which provides enhanced situational 

awareness, as quickly as possible to optimize training and reduce 

operation and sustainment costs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in line number 14 of APA for the conversion of 8 additional 

UH–60V aircraft. 

Interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 

The budget request contained $0.0 million in line number 4 of 

Missile Procurement, Army, for Indirect Fire Protection Capability 

(IFPC) Increment 2. 

The committee notes that, while the Army in February 2019 

issued a letter of intent to procure two batteries of Iron Dome to 

meet the requirement articulated in section 112 of the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232) for an interim cruise missile defense capability, this decision was predicated on submission and approval of 

an above threshold reprogramming (ATR) by mid-April 2019. Because of the delay in submission of the ATR to the congressional 

defense committees, the committee is concerned that the Army will 

16 

be unable to meet the statutory requirement for interim base defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a realignment that 

would support procurement of two Iron Dome batteries with fiscal 

year 2020 funds as well as a realignment elsewhere in this report 

of research, development, test, and evaluation funding to support 

the procurement. The committee notes that, should the ATR be 

fully approved before the end of fiscal year 2019, this realignment 

would no longer be necessary. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $229.9 

million in line number 4 of Missile Procurement, Army, for IFPC 

Increment 2. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army procurement 

The budget request did not contain any funding in Missile Procurement, Army, for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

(THAAD) system. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the Missile Defense Agency to the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $425.9 million in line number 5 of Missile Procurement, Army. 

Stryker lethality 

The budget request included $144.4 million in line number 3 of 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for Stryker 

modifications. 

The Army also identified on its unfunded priority list a shortfall 

in funding of $249.2 million in line number 3 of WTCV, Army, to 

fund Stryker lethality upgrades. 

The committee acknowledges the need to increase Stryker 

lethality with a 30mm gun in order to improve standoff and survivability and retain overmatch in support of the National Defense 

Strategy. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $249.2 million in line number 3 of WTCV, Army. 

Bradley program 

The budget request included $638.8 million in line number 5 of 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the procurement of upgrades to the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. 

The committee strongly supports the Bradley A4 upgrade program, which is essential to ensure that the armored brigade combat team remains relevant for the next 3 decades. However, the 

committee notes that, according to budget documents provided by 

the Department of the Army, the program is historically under-executing. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.0 million 

in line number 5 of WTCV, Army. 

Abrams upgrade program 

The budget request included $1.8 billion in line number 14 of 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the upgrade of 165 Abrams tanks to the M1A2 SEPv3. 

17 

The M1A2 SEPv3 program is vital to the lethality and survivability of the Army’s armored brigade combat team. The M1A2 

SEPv3 incorporates multiple improvements such as: turret and 

hull armor upgrades for enhanced crew survivability; the Total Integrated Engine Revitalization program and upgraded transmission 

for improved power pack reliability and durability; improved computer systems including microprocessors, color flat panel displays, 

and memory capacity; and Block 1 second generation Forward 

Looking Infra-Red technology. The committee strongly supports the 

Abrams Upgrade Program and its alignment to the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee believes that funding could 

be better balanced throughout the future years defense program to 

reduce industrial base turbulence. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 million 

in line number 14 of WTCV, Army. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

The budget request included $996.0 million in line number 6 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 2,530 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). 

The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $4.5 million 

from line number 6 of OPA to PE 65812A in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in order to complete the developmental portion of the Training, Aids, Devices, Simulators and 

Simulation Hands-On Trainers requirement for the JLTV. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 million 

in line number 6 of OPA. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

The budget request included $996.0 million in line 6 of Other 

Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 2,530 Joint 

Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). 

The JLTV is capable of performing multiple mission roles and is 

designed to provide protected, sustained, and networked mobility 

for personnel and payloads across the full range of military operations. 

However, the committee believes that the Army should make a 

full rate production decision as soon as possible. Therefore, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 million in line 6 of 

OPA. 

Q53 extended range radar 

The budget request included $16.4 million in line number 100 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for counterfire radars. 

The Army identified in its unfunded priority list a shortfall in 

funding of $62.5 million in line number 100 of OPA to fund the 

Q53 extended range radar. 

The committee acknowledges the need to improve current radar 

systems with gallium-nitride technology to extend the range capabilities for indirect fire units in support of the National Defense 

Strategy. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $62.5 million to line number 100 of OPA. 

18 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army 

The budget request included $18.7 million in line number 109 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Integrated Personnel and 

Pay System—Army. 

The committee is concerned about unjustified cost growth and 

poor business process reengineering. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $18.7 million in line number 109 of OPA. 

C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center Europe Analytic Center 

The budget request included $139.3 million in line number 113 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Automated Data Processing 

Equipment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in line 

number 113 of OPA to support life-cycle replacement of command, 

control, communication, computer, and intelligence systems and infrastructure at the Joint Intelligence Operations Center Europe 

Analytic Center at RAF Molesworth, United Kingdom. 

Army contract writing system 

The budget request included $15.0 million in line number 116 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Army Contract Writing 

System. 

The committee remains concerned about duplication among the 

Services in contract writing systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in line number 116 of OPA. 

Robotics and Applique Systems 

The budget request included $101.1 million in line number 138 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Robotics and Applique Systems. 

The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $12.8 million 

from PE 65053A within Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, to line number 138 of OPA for Ground Robotics, Squad 

Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S–MET) in order to accelerate 

the production and fielding of the S–MET. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.8 million in line number 138 of OPA. 

Navy 

F–35C 

The budget request included $2.3 billion in line number 3 of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 20 F–35 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to modernize and equip themselves with the 

most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the 

quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft and 

understands that the Chief of Naval Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list. 

19 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $215.0 million in line number 3 of APN for the procurement of 2 additional 

F–35C aircraft. 

F–35B 

The budget request included $1.3 billion in line number 5 of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 10 F–35 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Marine Corps’ 

efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and 

capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of fifth generation aircraft and understands that the 

Marine Corps has placed additional aircraft on its unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $249.1 million in line number 5 of APN for the procurement of 2 additional 

F–35B aircraft. 

F–5 aircraft procurement 

The budget request included $39.7 million in line number 22 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 22 F–5 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Department of 

Defense’s efforts to increase adversary air training capacity for the 

Navy and Marine Corps. However, the committee is concerned that 

the purchase of used third generation aircraft will not address the 

advanced training requirements laid out in the National Defense 

Strategy and could be met by the continued use of contracted adversary and close air support. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.7 million 

in line number 22 of APN. 

F–35B Spares 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for aircraft spares and repair 

parts. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to modernize and equip themselves with the 

most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the 

quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft and 

understands that the Chief of Naval Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.9 million in line number 67 of APN for spares. 

F–35C Spares 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for spares and repair parts. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to modernize and equip themselves with the 

most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the 

quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft and 

20 

understands that the Chief of Naval Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.6 million in line number 67 of APN. 

F–35B Engine 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 10 F–35 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Marine Corps’ 

efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and 

capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of fifth generation aircraft and understands that the 

Marine Corps has placed an additional engine on its unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $28.8 million in line number 67 of APN for the procurement of 1 additional 

F–35B engine. 

Tomahawk 

The budget request included no funding in line number 3 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for Tomahawk. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy’s original 

plan was to re-certify the existing inventory of Tomahawk missiles. 

Despite investment to facilitate the production line’s transitioning 

from production to re-certification, the Navy is now requesting to 

re-start the Tomahawk production line. The committee is concerned 

that this reversal in acquisition strategy does not have a thorough 

plan or requirement. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $56.3 million 

in line number 3 of WPN for test equipment and support of concurrent production and re-certification activities and encourages the 

Department of Navy to provide an updated plan for the Tomahawk 

missile. 

LCS Over-the-Horizon missile 

The budget request included no funding in line number 19 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) Over-the-Horizon (OTH) Missile. 

The committee notes that the OTH missile acquisition strategy 

is accelerated and contains unnecessary risk. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million 

in line number 19 of WPN for the LCS OTH Missile. 

MK–48 torpedo 

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the MK–48 Torpedo. 

The Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list requested 

an increase in procurement by 13 torpedoes to maximize the production line. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million for line number 29 of WPN for the MK–48 Torpedo. 

21 

Columbia-class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in line number 1 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Columbia-class submarine advance procurement. 

The committee believes that expanding the capabilities of the 

second- and third-tier contractors in the submarine industrial base 

should lead to greater cost savings and improved efficiency as production increases to meet the Columbia-class procurement schedule 

and higher requirement for Virginia-class attack submarines in the 

Navy’s latest Force Structure Assessment. 

The committee notes that the budget request includes some funding for submarine industrial base expansion to ensure that secondand third-tier contractors are able to meet increased production requirements. The committee understands that an additional $125.0 

million could be executed to further address such requirements. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $125.0 million in line number 1 of SCN for Columbia-class submarine advance procurement. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to notify the 

congressional defense committees, in writing, within 30 days of obligating funds provided for submarine industrial base expansion. 

The notification shall include: 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. 

Carrier replacement program 

The budget request included $2.3 billion in line number 2 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the carrier replacement program. 

The committee notes that the John S. McCain National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) authorized the aircraft carrier designated CVN–81. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a quantity decrease from 

1 to 0 in line number 2 of SCN for the carrier replacement program. 

Virginia-class submarine program 

The budget request included $7.2 billion in line number 3 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class submarines. 

The committee notes that the typical procurement funding profile 

for Virginia-class submarines consists of 2 years of advance procurement followed by 1 year of full funding procurement. The committee further notes that the budget request’s proposed procurement of a third submarine (SSN–812) includes funds only in fiscal 

year 2020 and is underfunded by $667.0 million. Based partially on 

this funding approach, SSN–812 is scheduled to be delivered after 

the 2 submarines planned to be procured in fiscal year 2023, requiring, in effect, 3 years of advance procurement and 1 year of full 

funding. 

22 

The committee also understands that the Navy is considering a 

significant design change for SSN–812, which would require approximately $1.2 billion in additional funding, potentially bringing 

the total cost of SSN–812 to $5.0 billion with an unfunded liability 

of more than $1.8 billion as compared to the budget request. 

The committee is concerned that the budget request for SSN–812 

is significantly underfunded, departs from the traditional funding 

profile for attack submarines, may include a significant design 

change not reviewed as part of this budget request, and does not 

account for the effect of SSN–812’s increased demand on critical 

suppliers already struggling to meet existing Navy procurement 

plans. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit an updated SSN–812 acquisition strategy to the congressional defense committees concurrent with the Navy’s fiscal year 

2021 budget request. This strategy shall include an updated Component Cost Estimate, design changes that depart from the Block 

V Virginia-class submarine design, and an assessment of the effect 

SSN–812 will have on critical suppliers. 

Additionally, the committee is concerned that the budget request’s proposal to remove the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) 

from SSN–804 would introduce excessive operational and acquisition risk as the Navy seeks to replace the strike capacity of the retiring Ohio-class guided missile submarines with VPM on Virginiaclass submarines. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 billion 

for SSN–812 and an increase of $522.1 million for SSN–804 VPM, 

for a net decrease of $2.5 billion, in line number 3 of SCN for Virginia-class submarines. 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included $2.8 billion in line number 4 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class submarine advance procurement. 

The committee notes that attack submarines provide critical capabilities necessary to execute the National Defense Strategy. The 

committee is concerned that, under current plans, the Navy will 

not meet its requirement of 66 attack submarines until fiscal year 

2048. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 billion 

in line number 4 of SCN for Virginia-class submarine advance procurement. 

Refueling and complex overhauls of aircraft carriers 

The budget request included $647.9 million in line number 5 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for refueling and complex overhauls (RCOH) of aircraft carriers. 

The committee notes unjustified cost growth from the CVN–73 

RCOH to the CVN–74 RCOH in basic construction/conversion and 

ordnance. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million 

in line number 5 of SCN for refueling and complex overhauls of aircraft carriers. 

23 

Refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement 

The budget request included no funding in line number 6 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) advance procurement. 

The committee does not support the budget request’s proposal to 

not refuel the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN–75). 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million to restore the CVN–75 RCOH in line number 6 of SCN for refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 

The budget request included $5.1 billion in line number 8 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer procurement. 

The committee notes that the budget request includes procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which is one additional destroyer in fiscal year 2020 as compared to last year’s request. The committee has not received sufficient justification for 

the unit cost increases of the fiscal year 2020 destroyers, as compared to last year’s request. In addition, the committee notes that 

this program has available prior years funds, which are excess to 

need. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million 

in line number 8 of SCN. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement 

The budget request included $224.0 million in line number 9 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer advance procurement. 

The committee notes that the Navy future years defense program 

includes procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal 

year 2021, 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 $260.0 million in line number 9 of SCN. 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship 

The budget request included no funding in line number 12 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of LPD 

Flight II-class amphibious transport ships. 

The committee notes that the Navy has identified LPD–30, which 

was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as the first 

Flight II LPD. In the fiscal year 2019 budget request, the Navy 

planned to procure the next Flight II LPD, LPD–31, in fiscal year 

2020. The committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2020 budget 

request’s delay of procurement of LPD–31 to fiscal year 2021 could 

result in production inefficiency, increased cost, and delay in reaching the Navy’s requirement for 38 amphibious ships. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $525.0 million in line number 12 of SCN for incremental funding of the amphibious transport ship designated LPD–31. 

24 

The committee’s intent is for the Navy to use the $350.0 million 

appropriated in SCN line number 13 in fiscal year 2019 and additional fiscal year 2020 funds in SCN line number 12 to procure 

LPD–31 long-lead material and start construction as efficiently as 

possible. Consistent with the budget request, the committee expects 

the Navy to request the balance of costs for LPD–31 in fiscal year 

2021. 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement 

The budget request included $247.1 million in line number 13 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for advance procurement of LPD Flight II-class amphibious transport ships. 

The committee recommends transferring the funds requested in 

line number 13 of SCN to line number 12 of SCN to support incremental funding of the amphibious transport ship designated LPD– 

31. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $247.1 million in line number 13 of SCN for advance procurement of LPD 

Flight II-class amphibious transport ships. 

LHA replacement amphibious assault ship 

The budget request included no funding in line number 15 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of LHA 

replacement amphibious assault ships. 

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) would be procured in fiscal year 2024. 

The committee notes that efficiencies could be gained by reducing 

this span, including steadier workflow with an increased learning 

curve, material and equipment suppliers with more predictable delivery contracts, and a more effective continuous improvement 

schedule. 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate procurement of LHA–9, including putting the $356.0 million appropriated in fiscal year 2019 for this ship on contract to procure long 

lead-time material as soon as possible and leveraging the incremental funding authority provided elsewhere in this Act to start 

construction and build LHA–9 as efficiently as possible. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 million in line number 15 of SCN. 

Outfitting 

The budget request included $754.7 million in line number 23 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting. 

Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes that postdelivery funding is early-to-need for LCS–21 ($5.0 million). The 

committee also notes the unjustified outfitting cost growth for 

SSN–793, SSN–794, SSN–795, and SSN–796 ($20.0 million). The 

committee further notes unjustified post-delivery cost growth for 

DDG–1000 ($25.0 million). 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million 

in line number 23 of SCN. 

25 

Service craft 

The budget request included $56.3 million in line number 25 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for service craft. 

In order to increase training opportunities for Surface Warfare 

Officer candidates from all accession sources, the committee believes that the Navy should replace the six YP–676 class craft slated for disposal with upgraded YP–703 class 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 2020. The committee notes that the Navy’s current cost estimate for acquisition 

of the first upgraded YP–703 class craft is $25.5 million. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.5 million in line number 25 of SCN. 

Expeditionary Fast Transport (T–EPF 14) conversion 

The budget request included $55.7 million in line number 28 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for completion of prior 

year shipbuilding programs. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list states that additional funding could provide for 

the conversion of an Expeditionary Fast Transport (T–EPF 14) into 

an Expeditionary Medical Transport to better fulfill distributed 

maritime medical requirements. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0 million in line number 28 of SCN. 

Ship to shore connector advance procurement 

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for ship to shore connector advance procurement. 

The committee understands that additional funding could provide needed stability for certain suppliers in the ship to shore connector program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.4 million in line number 29 of SCN. 

Hull, mechanical, and electrical upgrades for Arleigh Burkeclass destroyers 

The budget request included $31.6 million in line number 2 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for surface combatant hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list states that additional funding could provide for 

reliability upgrades to the Integrated Bridge and Navigation and 

associated systems, including the addition of physical throttles to 

the ship control console, a voyage data recorder, and software upgrades to the steering and propulsion control system. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million in line number 2 of OPN. 

26 

Expeditionary mine countermeasures 

The budget request included $71.2 million in line number 20 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for underwater explosive ordnance disposal programs. 

The committee notes that the Mark 18 unmanned underwater 

vehicle (UUV) program is proven and remains the only mine countermeasures (MCM) UUV program with Milestone C approval and 

in full rate production. 

Additionally, the committee understands that the Navy has a 

validated need for eight additional expeditionary MCM (ExMCM) 

companies beyond the eight already outfitted. The committee further understands that $11.0 million in additional funding could 

outfit 4 additional ExMCM companies with the full complement of 

Mark 18 UUVs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in line number 20 of OPN. 

Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission modules 

The budget request included $197.1 million in line number 30 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of Littoral 

Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission module equipment. 

The committee notes that the Navy is requesting funding to purchase equipment that has not yet undergone operational testing, 

which is an approach that, as the Government Accountability Office has shown, leads to cost growth and schedule delays. The committee believes that the following requested systems would constitute excessive procurement ahead of satisfactory testing: 6 unmanned surface vehicle and minesweeping payload delivery systems, 4 minehunting payload delivery systems (new), 3 

minehunting payload delivery systems (backfit), and 2 buried 

minehunting modules, including support equipment. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $129.8 million in line number 30 of OPN. 

Knifefish 

The budget request included $40.5 million in line number 34 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of small and 

medium unmanned underwater vehicles. 

The committee notes that the two Knifefish systems which are 

to be procured with this funding require further testing, including 

the initial operational test and evaluation period that is currently 

scheduled for fiscal year 2021. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.9 million 

in line number 34 of OPN. 

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program 

The budget request included $420.2 million in line number 44 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of electronic 

warfare equipment. 

The committee notes that procurement of at least two of the 

three Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block 3 

units is early-to-need based on the Navy’s installation plan. 

27 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $62.0 million 

in line number 44 of OPN. 

Ship’s signal exploitation equipment expansion 

The budget request included $194.8 million in line number 45 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for shipboard information warfare exploitation. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list states that additional funding could provide for 

expansion of ship’s signal exploitation space and installation of 

ship’s signal exploitation equipment modifications on Flight I 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million 

in line number 45 of OPN. 

Next Generation Surface Search Radar 

The budget request included $168.4 million in line number 70 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of items less 

than $5 million. 

The committee notes that procurement of 28 Next Generation 

Surface Search Radars is early-to-need based on the Navy’s installation plan. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.8 million 

in line number 70 of OPN. 

Sonobuoys 

The budget request included $260.6 million in line number 85 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of 

sonobuoys. 

The committee notes that greater-than-expected sonobuoy expenditures in fiscal year 2019 resulted in the Chief of Naval Operations’ requesting procurement of additional sonobuoys as a fiscal 

year 2020 unfunded priority. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in line number 85 of OPN. 

Electronic Procurement System 

The budget request included $66.1 million in line number 122 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Command Support Equipment, including $6.3 million for Electronic Procurement System. 

The committee remains concerned about unnecessarily bespoke 

contract writing systems and processes. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.3 million in line number 122 of OPN. 

Air Force 

F–35A 

The budget request included $4.3 billion in line number 1 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 48 F–35 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

28 

procurement of fifth generation aircraft and understands that the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force has placed additional aircraft on his 

unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.1 billion 

in line number 1 of APA for the procurement of 12 additional F– 

35 aircraft. 

F–35 advanced procurement 

The budget request included $655.5 million in line number 2 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for advanced procurement 

of F–35 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of fifth generation aircraft and understands that the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force has placed additional aircraft on his 

unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $156.0 million in line number 2 of APAF for advanced procurement to support 

12 additional F–35A aircraft. 

F–15X 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in line number 3 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 8 F–15X aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize its aging air superiority fighters. The committee 

also understands that the use of existing non-developmental aircraft already in inventory allows for the continued readiness of current F–15 squadrons. However, the committee is concerned that 

the associated non-recurring engineering costs, as programmed, are 

above what should be for a non-developmental aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $162.0 million in line number 3 of APAF. 

KC–46 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 5 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 12 KC–46 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of tanker aircraft and understands that the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $471.0 million in line 5 of APAF for the procurement of 3 additional KC–46 

aircraft. 

F–15 ADCP 

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number 25 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the procurement of 

new avionics radars. 

29 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force efforts 

to modernize the legacy 4th generation fleet in support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also understands the Air 

Force’s intention to recapitalize the F–15 fleet with new F–15X aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.1 million 

in line 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of F–15 avionics. 

F–15 IFF modernization 

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number 25 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of new 

IFF. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force efforts 

to modernize the legacy fourth generation fleet in support of the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee also understands the 

Air Force’s intention to recapitalize the F–15 fleet with new F–15X 

aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.6 million 

in line 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of F–15 IFF. 

F–15 Longerons 

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number 25 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the procurement of 64 

F–15 Longerons. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force efforts 

to modernize the legacy fourth generation fleet in support of the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee also understands the 

Air Force’s intention to recapitalize the F–15 fleet with new F–15X 

aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $24.6 million 

in line number 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of 

F–15 Longerons. 

F–15 Radar 

The budget request included $481.1 million in line 25 of Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of new radars. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force efforts 

to modernize the legacy 4th generation fleet in support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also understands the Air 

Force’s intention to recapitalize the F–15 fleet with new F–15X aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.7 million 

in line number 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of 

F–15 radars. 

F–16 modernization 

The budget request included $234.8 million in line number 26 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize its fourth generation fighter fleet and equip 

itself with the most advanced and capable radars in support of the 

National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned 

30 

about the quantity and timing of procurement of advanced radars 

for the entire F–16 fleet. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million in line number 26 of APA for the procurement of 30 additional 

radars. 

F–15C EPAWSS 

The budget request included $149.0 million in line number 31 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for F–15 Eagle Passive 

Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS). 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced electronic warfare capability available in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee also understands the Air 

Force’s intention to recapitalize the F–15 fleet with new F–15X aircraft already equipped with the EPAWSS. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $67.2 million 

in line number 31 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of 

additional F–15 EPAWSS kits. 

Command and control sustainability 

The budget request included $28.8 million in line number 58 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for E–8. 

The committee notes that command and control nodes are at a 

significant disadvantage due to aging communications. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in line 58 of APAF for next-generation satellite communication 

radios that are both SATURN and Mobile User Objective System 

capable as well as Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System terminals. 

F–35A Spares 

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number 69 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and repair 

parts. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of fifth generation aircraft and understands that the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force has placed additional aircraft on his 

unfunded priority list. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $96.0 million in line number 69. 

KC–46 Spares 

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number 69 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and repair 

parts. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force’s efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

procurement of tanker aircraft and understands that the Chief of 

31 

Staff of the Air Force has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $141.0 million in line number 69 of APAF for spares. 

RQ–4 spare parts 

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number 69 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and repair 

parts. 

The committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of 

spare parts for the RQ–4. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in line number 69 of APAF. 

Minuteman III Modifications 

The budget request included $50.8 million in line number 14 of 

Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for Minuteman III modifications. 

The committee supports the request of the Air Force to re-align 

certain funds from other projects to support implementation of the 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Crypto Upgrade II program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.9 million in line number 14 of MPAF for Minuteman III Modifications. 

Air-Launched Cruise Missile 

The budget request included $77.4 million in line number 17 in 

Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for the Air-Launched 

Cruise Missile. 

The committee supports the request of the Air Force to re-align 

certain funds from the Support Equipment sub-project to support 

other Air Force nuclear priorities. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.9 million in line number 17 of MPAF for the Air-Launched Cruise Missile. 

F–35 training and range modernization 

The budget request included $234.0 million in line number 32 of 

Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for Combat Training 

Ranges. 

The committee recognizes the importance of modernizing USAF 

training ranges for 5th generation aircraft. The committee notes 

that 35 percent of the current F–35A training curriculum requires 

pilot training scenarios involving use of joint threat emitters (JTEs) 

in order to simulate combat-like training conditions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, for line number 32 to install 

four JTEs for F–35A training. 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System 

The budget request included $20.9 million in line number 36 of 

Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for Integrated Personnel 

and Pay System. 

The committee is concerned about poor agile implementation and 

infrequent capability delivery. 

32 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.9 million in line number 36 of OPAF. 

Defense Wide 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $3.3 million in line number 8 of Procurement, Defense-wide, Information Systems Security. 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million 

in line number 8 for Procurement, Defense-wide, for the Sharkseer 

program. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency procurement 

The budget request included $425.9 million in line number 28 of 

Procurement, Defense-wide, for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) procurement by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the MDA to the 

Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $425.9 million in line number 28 of Procurement, Defense-wide. 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $1.5 million in line number 44 of 

Procurement, Defense-wide, Information Systems Security Program 

(ISSP). 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.4 million 

in line number 44 of Procurement, Defense-wide, for the Sharkseer 

program. 

Radio Frequency Countermeasure System 

The budget request included $173.4 million in line number 61 of 

Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), AC/MC–130J, of which $41.6 

million is for the AC/MC–130J Radio Frequency Countermeasure 

System (RFCM). 

The committee understands that the RFCM program is experiencing schedule delays due to integration and compatibility issues 

with the technology. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.8 million 

to line number 61 of PDW, AC/MC–130J, for a total of $32.8 million for RFCM. The committee notes that, elsewhere in the Act, 

33 

there is a symmetric increase to U.S. Special Operations Command’s future vertical lift research and development efforts, a high 

priority unfunded requirement identified by the command. 

Transfer OCO to Base 

The budget request included $118.9 billion for Procurement in 

base funding. The committee notes that the President’s budget request included $97.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities that are traditionally funded out 

of base accounts. The committee believes that OCO for Base funding should be transferred into the base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $13.5 billion to Procurement. 

Items of Special Interest 

A–10 modernization 

The committee is encouraged that the Air Force is executing a 

modernization strategy to provide unmatched air power and believes that modernizing the A–10 fleet is integral to this strategy. 

The committee also believes that upgrades to weapons delivery, 

management systems, and the electronic warfare and communications suite that keep pace with threat advancements and proliferation are critical to the continued success of the weapons system. 

The committee notes that these enhancements and the aircraft 

wing replacements will maintain the effectiveness of the A–10C 

through the 2030s. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that continuous funding 

for the modernization of the A–10C be provided from fiscal year 

2020 through fiscal year 2030 in order to achieve upgrades that are 

long overdue. 

Acquisition strategy for LHA–9 and LHA–10 

The committee notes that the Navy estimates that $4.0 billion 

will be saved using a block buy acquisition strategy for the procurement of CVN–80 and CVN–81. 

The committee believes that such an approach for LHA–9 and 

LHA–10 could provide substantial cost savings as well as needed 

stability and predictability for the shipbuilder and its vendor base. 

Accordingly, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the merits of pursuing a block buy acquisition strategy for LHA–9 and LHA–10. 

This report shall include a business case analysis comparing the 

cost and schedule of single ship contracts for LHA–9 and LHA–10 

with a block buy contract for such ships as well as a description 

of other key considerations that the Secretary deems appropriate. 

If the business case analysis shows that pursuing a block buy 

strategy for LHA–9 and LHA–10 has merit, the committee strongly 

encourages the Secretary to consider inclusion of such a proposal 

in the Navy’s budget request for fiscal year 2021. 

34 

Acquisition strategy for LPD Flight II-class ships 

The committee notes that the Navy estimates that $4.0 billion 

will be saved using a block buy acquisition strategy for the procurement of CVN–80 and CVN–81. 

The committee believes that a block buy or multiyear procurement approach for LPD Flight II-class amphibious transport ships 

could provide substantial cost savings as well as needed stability 

and predictability for the shipbuilder and its vendor base. 

Accordingly, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the merits of pursuing a block buy or 

multiyear procurement acquisition strategy for LPD Flight II-class 

ships. 

This report shall include a business case analysis comparing the 

cost and schedule of single ship contracts with a block buy or 

multiyear contract for such ships as well as a description of other 

key considerations that the Secretary deems appropriate. 

If the business case analysis shows that pursuing a block buy or 

multiyear procurement strategy for LPD Flight II-class ships has 

merit, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary to consider 

inclusion of such a proposal in the Navy’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2021. 

Active Protection System for Stryker 

Active Protection Systems (APS) can be a critical capability to 

protect our warfighters on the battlefield. The committee notes that 

the Army is currently procuring four brigade sets of Trophy for the 

M1 Abrams tank and that a decision was recently made to procure 

a brigade set of the Iron Fist system for the M2 Bradley. 

The Army has evaluated various systems for integration on to 

Stryker vehicles but has not made a final decision on what system 

is most effective and suitable for the platform. According to a congressionally directed report that was submitted in October 2018, 

the Army had anticipated making a vendor selection during the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2019. However in testimony before the 

Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Airland in 

April 2019, senior Army leadership testified that it may take significantly more time for the Army to make a determination on 

whether to proceed with either of the systems being evaluated. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing to the committee by October 1, 2019, that provides an update on the Army’s efforts to assess APS vendors for integration onto the Stryker platform, including the effectiveness of 

systems tested, plans for future testing, proposals for future development, and a timeline for fielding. 

Adaptive Threat Force 

The committee notes that the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory’s Adaptive Threat Force efforts in concept-based experimentation seek to replicate future operating environments and future 

adversaries. The committee believes that predictive understanding 

of potential asymmetric advantages of adversaries can be identified 

during experimentation through the use of red teams and live adVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
35 

versary forces. Further, the committee notes that these efforts can 

also lead to improved training of warfighters. 

Advanced Helicopter Training System 

The committee believes that the Department of the Navy must 

rapidly develop realistic rotary training platforms to help ensure 

that the next generation of naval aviators remains proficient in 

conducting sustained air operations at sea. The Advanced Helicopter Training System (AHTS) addresses the capacity and capability gaps for the Chief of Naval Air Training rotary wing training 

pipeline. Through the AHTS program, the Navy will revamp its 

training syllabus by acquiring 130 helicopters and advanced simulators to produce more than 600 student naval aviators and execute 90,000 flight hours annually. The committee concurs with the 

Navy’s insistence that the TH–XX be Federal Aviation Administration-Instrument Flight Rules (FAA–IFR) certified prior to awarding 

a contract, thereby assuring that the Navy student pilot training 

benefits from safety features and standards inherent in a fully developed and FAA–IFR certified aircraft. 

Advanced survivability modeling capability for air-launched 

weapons 

The emergence of great power competition is the central longterm planning challenge for the Department of Defense (DOD). 

More capable adversaries employing highly advanced integrated air 

defense systems can create heavily contested environments that 

deny U.S. forces the freedom to operate. Such integrated air defense systems present a threat not only to launch systems but also 

to their air-launched conventional weapons. Launch platforms and 

their suite of strike weapons must possess sufficient range, autonomy, survivability, and lethality for mission effectiveness in order 

to remain relevant in future scenarios. 

The committee is concerned that current air-launched conventional weapons do not adequately account for advanced terminal 

defense systems that often protect high-value mobile targets both 

on land and at sea. Advanced integrated air defenses are expected 

to be effective against weapons that were designed to be survivable 

by virtue of a single attribute (e.g., speed) rather than a combination of attributes that enable successful engagement of high-value 

targets with state-of-the-art, close-in weapon systems. 

In addition, the committee is concerned about the fidelity of DOD 

models that simulate the effectiveness of adversary close-in defensive systems on conventional strike weapons. The committee 

strongly encourages the Departments of the Navy and Air Force to 

emphasize munitions survivability attributes that together improve 

probability of mission success. 

Therefore, the committee directs both the Secretary of the Air 

Force and the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing, not later 

than March 1, 2020, that outlines the mission effectiveness of current and planned air-launched conventional weapons for use 

against high-value mobile targets protected by advanced integrated 

air defense systems. The briefing must address the following: 

(1) Stand-off requirements; 

(2) Survivability characteristics; 

36 

(3) Weapon lethality; 

(4) A cost-per-kill assessment to evaluate mission effectiveness; and 

(5) A comparison of existing autonomous capability. 

Aerospace ground equipment for B–52 Stratofortress 

The committee understands that the Air Force bomber vector 

plans to keep the B–52 weapon system available for conventional 

and nuclear missions well into the 2040s. Efforts are now underway to update the plane’s radars, engines, communications, and 

navigation equipment. Relatively little effort has been given to the 

aerospace ground equipment that provide power, inert gas, munitions loading, and other support functions in preparation for a mission, yet this ground support equipment is just as important to 

mission success as components on the B–52. The committee is concerned that the failure of ground electrical carts can cause a delay 

of several hours to a bomber mission. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force to brief the congressional defense committees, no later than April 30, 2020, on the 

age of the aerospace ground support equipment currently supporting the B–52 weapon system, their average reliability, and 

plans to replace or update this equipment in line with keeping the 

B–52 weapon system operational through 2040. 

Air Force Active Association 

The committee supports the Air Force’s Total Force Integration 

(TFI) concept to leverage the capabilities of both the Air Force Active Duty and its reserve components. The committee believes that 

Active Associations are an important component of TFI, providing 

the opportunity for Active-Duty pilots and personnel to access reserve component aircraft and train with reserve component pilots 

and maintenance personnel. 

The committee remains concerned about the delayed deliveries of 

the KC–46A aerial refueling tanker and the impact it will have on 

the existing tanker fleet, most notably extending the service of KC– 

135 tankers. The committee is further concerned about the continued operation of legacy air refueling platforms and the impact on 

the Air Force’s Active Associations. Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force and Air Mobility Command to notify the congressional defense committees regarding any plans to draw down 

Active Associations because KC–46A deliveries have been later 

than planned and, if there are such reductions, to provide a report 

on plans to restore these existing Active Associations to full 

strength. 

Air Force Future ISR Integration Strategy 

The committee is aware of the recent publication of the United 

States Air Force Next Generation Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR) Dominance Flight Plan and the Air Force’s 

desire to modernize its ISR enterprise. The committee is encouraged by the Air Force’s intent to field a resilient, integrated ISR 

network of manned and unmanned systems to prevail in contested 

environments, and it believes that this goal aligns with the National Defense Strategy. 

37 

The committee notes that the Air Force’s future ISR enterprise 

will comprise both manned and unmanned systems that are integrated with space and cyber assets. While the fielding of advanced 

autonomous systems and ISR networks will allow for added resiliency, large manned platforms such as the RC–135 are forecasted 

to remain an integral part of the Air Force ISR system for decades 

to come, and they offer a unique set of capabilities that are central 

to meeting the needs of combatant commanders. The committee believes that the Air Force must have the capability to integrate information from both manned and unmanned assets in its future 

ISR enterprise in order to capitalize on the strengths offered by 

both platforms. In its effort to realize the goals of its Next Generation ISR Dominance Flight Plan, the Air Force must ensure that 

all assets and platforms are integrated into a unified concept of operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, no 

later than March 1, 2020, detailing the Air Force’s plan for integrating both manned and unmanned systems into its future force 

mix and ISR enterprise. The report shall detail how the Air Force 

plans to use manned ISR assets alongside unmanned platforms as 

well as space-based ISR platforms and a networked sensor architecture in support of the warfighter. The report shall also detail 

planned modernization and survivability upgrades to the manned 

assets and networks. The report shall: 

(1) Detail the strengths and vulnerabilities in both manned 

and unmanned ISR elements; 

(2) Provide a detailed description of the data links for both 

control and data processing; 

(3) Describe the next generation of data link to succeed Link 

16 capability; and 

(4) Provide funding data to support this concept across the 

future years defense program. 

Air Force ISR SIGINT data integration 

The committee notes the efforts of the Air Force to develop an 

integrated, capability-focused SIGINT architecture and investment 

strategy. The committee observes that the investment has already 

produced significant advances in Air Force SIGINT capability, particularly within the medium-altitude RC–135 Rivet Joint program. 

The committee is also aware that some significant capability gaps 

exist against current threats and that the Air Force has not yet addressed diminishing industrial base issues with the high-altitude 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload program. Additionally, the 

Air Force has not yet achieved a unified enterprise for SIGINT 

processing, exploitation, and dissemination, despite having a distributed technical architecture within both the RC–135 Rivet Joint 

and Air Force distributed common ground system programs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, no 

later than March 1, 2020, on how the Air Force is implementing 

its Next Generation Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 

Dominance Flight Plan in order to make Air Force airborne 

SIGINT data from the RC–I35, U–2, RQ–4, MQ–9, and future 

38 

SIGINT capabilities discoverable and available to the joint 

warfighter. The briefing shall address, among other things, cloudbased technologies and distributed crew concepts. 

Army rotary wing munitions capabilities, capability gaps, 

and solutions 

The committee is concerned that the standoff range advantages 

of U.S. rotary wing aircraft munitions have eroded when compared 

to near peer and regional adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and 

North Korea. Munitions with greater standoff range and the ability 

to operate in a GPS-denied or -degraded environment are critical 

to restoring the Army’s dominance in air-to-surface fires. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing by October 1, 2019, on Army rotary wing munitions capabilities, capability gaps, and potential off-the-shelf solutions. The briefing should include: 

(1) Current U.S. rotary wing munitions capabilities and capability gaps against munitions fielded by Russia, China, Iran, 

and North Korea; 

(2) Potential off-the-shelf solutions that would bridge these 

capability gaps, including any munitions that the U.S. tests in 

calendar year 2019; and 

(3) Detailed information on any testing of non-program of 

record munitions by the U.S. Army in calendar year 2019, including: 

(a) An assessment of the effectiveness of the tested munitions to meet threats from near peer adversaries and any 

operational needs statements from combat aviation brigades for Europe and the Indo-Pacific; 

(b) An assessment of whether the tested munitions 

would complement capabilities for current programs of 

record; 

(c) A comparison of the tested systems’ capabilities 

against current munitions; and 

(4) The cost and timeline for the Army to field the necessary 

capability to close this gap, including: 

(a) Interim fielding to meet current requirements; and 

(b) Potential enduring solutions. 

ATACMS Requirement 

The committee is concerned that the current Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) inventory is insufficient to meet requirements, especially in light of the National Defense Strategy. The 

Army total munition requirement for ATACMSs is 4,417 missiles 

but the current quantity is 1,725 missiles. Despite the shortfall, the 

Army’s plan is to extend the life of existing ATACMSs rather than 

growing additional capacity. However, the Army has had a difficult 

time retrieving existing ATACMSs to put them into the shelf-life 

extension program and thus has relied on new missile production 

to replace existing inventory. The committee notes that, in the 

budget request for fiscal year 2020, $340.6 million of the $425.9 

million for the ATACMS program is for new missile procurement. 

The committee also notes that the Army’s unfunded priorities list 

requested funding for Cross-Domain ATACMSs to support a United 

39 

States Indo-Pacific Combatant Command requirement. Further, the 

committee notes that the Precision Strike Missile, which would replace ATACMS, will not include cross-domain capabilities until fiscal year 2024 at the earliest. Therefore, the committee recommends 

that the Army reevaluate decisions to not grow the ATACMS inventory given: (1) The substantial shortfall in inventory as compared to the actual requirement; (2) That the Army is already procuring new all-up rounds; and (3) The new capabilities that the 

Cross-Domain ATACMS now adds to the program. 

Bomber roadmap 

The committee is concerned with the timing of multiple programs 

involving the Air Force bomber force. The committee notes that the 

strategic threat from peer competitors like China and Russia will 

only continue to increase, as highlighted in the National Defense 

Strategy, which will increase demand on the critical bomber force. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a briefing, no later than February 1, 2020, to the congressional defense committees that delineates the strategy and the 

pathway for legacy bombers as well as the acquisition of the B–21 

and its integration in the bomber force. The briefing shall include 

an updated Air Force bomber roadmap and the Air Force’s plans 

for timing and synchronization of: 

(1) B–52 re-engining and modernization; 

(2) Construction of weapons generation facilities; 

(3) Basing of B–21 conventional and nuclear aircraft; and 

(4) Life cycle sustainment of B–1, B–2, and B–52 aircraft. 

Bradley program 

The budget request included $638.8 million in line 5 of Weapons 

& Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), for the procurement of upgrades to the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. As an integral 

part of the Army’s Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), the 

Bradley is being modernized in a program approved by the Army 

Acquisition Executive in July 2011 to enhance survivability, mobility, and lethality by procurement of hardware for modifications. 

These modifications include two Engineering Change Proposals in 

this plan, with the Bradley A4 upgrade being the most significant. 

As the Army works to align itself with the National Defense 

Strategy and its focus on near-peer competition, the committee understands that the Army plans to gradually phase out the Bradley 

and replace it with a new Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle 

(OMFV). To achieve this strategy, the Army has formulated a plan 

to end M2A4 production in fiscal year 2022, following the procurement of 859 vehicles (fielding 5 ABCTs plus 1 prepositioned set), 

which will enable sufficient funding for the procurement of the 

OMFV. 

The committee supports the Army’s planning and budgeting to 

achieve force modernization with the OMFV and understands that 

it will take at least 6 years to develop and begin fielding the 

OMFV. The committee also notes that the Bradley A4 upgrade program is essential to ensuring that the ABCT remains relevant for 

the next 3 decades. Nonetheless, the committee encourages the 

Army to ensure that the Bradley industrial base is properly mainVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
40 

tained until the Army has a high level of confidence that the 

OMFV program will not be delayed. 

Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of upgrades 

for the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicle modernization across five 

ABCTs, efforts to sustain the entire fleet, and the incorporation of 

an Active Protection System into the fleet. 

Building Partner Combat Air Capacity 

The committee understands the importance of building partner 

capacity as part of the U.S. National Security Strategy. The committee supports ongoing Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to 

increase the combat air capability and interoperability of U.S. coalition partners. Proficiency in air combat requires training in a realistic air-combat environment with the ability to provide post-mission reconstruction of maneuvers and tactics, participant pairings, 

and integration of range targets and simulated threats. That is 

achieved today around the world using air combat maneuvering instrumentation (AGMI) systems. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief 

the congressional defense committees, no later than 180 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act on DOD’s ability to increase 

the utilization of U.S. approved and interoperable AGMI systems 

worldwide. The briefing shall, at a minimum, identify current approved world-wide AGMI locations and identify and prioritize locations where new AGMI systems could increase combat air capability of U.S. and partner forces. 

Capability to counter supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense is lateto-need on dealing with the current threat of fielded or soon-to-befielded supersonic and hypersonic missiles in both the Indo-Pacific 

and European areas of responsibility. 

In addition, the committee believes there is a disconnect between 

Joint Force doctrine, the responsibility of the area air defense commander, which is normally the Air Component Commander, and 

the responsibility for air and missile defense, which resides with 

the U.S. Army, as established in law. This issue is most pronounced with theater air and missile defense, and it has the potential to yield a gap between joint force requirements and available 

capabilities that will only be increased with constrained spending. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Force Air Component Commanders for 

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and U.S. European Command, to provide a briefing, not later than January 1, 2020, to the congressional 

defense committees, on countering supersonic cruise missiles and 

hypersonic missiles. The briefing must include: 

(1) Currently fielded or soon-to-be fielded adversary supersonic or hypersonic missiles; 

(2) An evaluation of the ability to counter supersonic threats 

against airfields and Army preposition sites by 2023, based on 

available forces or potential programs available to be fielded in 

that timeframe; 

41 

(3) An evaluation of the ability to counter hypersonic threats 

against airfields and Army preposition sites by 2023, based on 

available forces or potential programs available to be fielded in 

that timeframe; 

(4) Any other subjects or recommendations that the Secretary or Component Commanders wish to include. 

Carbon fiber wheels and graphitic foam for Next Generation 

Combat Vehicle 

The committee recognizes the recent effort related to Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) technologies and is encouraged by the U.S. 

Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center’s (GVSC) decision to transition into lower-cost, wider application carbon fiber composite 

wheels and graphitic carbon foam research to support the Next 

Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). Carbon fiber wheels may reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, and extend service life for the NGCV. Graphitic Carbon 

Foam may also reduce vehicle heat signatures and improve heat 

dissipation from engine and electronics compartments and protect 

against blast energy, directed energy weapons, and electromagnetic 

pulse threats. Finally, these products lend themselves to be produced at remote locations with additive manufacturing processes in 

support of NGCV operation and maintenance. 

The Defense Logistics Agency has designated both graphite and 

carbon fiber as strategic materials. The committee notes that the 

GVSC has identified low-cost mesophase pitch as a United Statesbased source of graphite that can be used to produce carbon fiber, 

graphitic carbon foam, and battery technologies for the NGCV. The 

committee acknowledges the versatility and broad application that 

carbon fiber technology provides for the armed services by reducing 

the weight of parts by over 50% as compared to traditional steel 

components. 

The committee recommends that the GVSC continue to develop, 

test, and field low-cost mesophase pitch carbon fiber and graphitic 

carbon foam components that can reduce vehicle weight, reduce 

fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, extend service life, improve survivability, and utilize additive manufacturing technology 

for the NGCV program. 

CH–47F Block II Program 

The budget request contained $174.4 million in PE 67137A within Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army 

for the CH–47 Block II program. The CH–47F Block II program is 

designed to upgrade the current CH–47F Block I heavy-lift rotorcraft in order to improve readiness and commonality, extend the 

useful life of the Block I helicopter, and restore additional payload 

capacity for the airframe. The committee understands that the 

budget request fully funds the completion of the Engineering and 

Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the Block II program. 

The committee also understands that, subject to successful completion of the EMD phase, the Army plans to conduct a Milestone C 

low-rate production decision beginning in fiscal year 2021. However, the committee notes that the current Future Years Defense 

42 

Program (FYDP) provides no additional procurement funding for 

the CH–47 Block II program. 

Further, the committee notes that the formal Analysis of Alternatives for the CH–47 Block II indicated that, in order to maintain 

fleet readiness, the Army must begin to remanufacture CH–47 

Block I rotorcraft between fiscal years 2024 and 2028 and sustain 

full-rate production of 12 aircraft per year by fiscal year 2030. The 

committee is concerned about the impact from the lack of programmed funding in the FYDP for CH–47 Block II production on 

the heavy-lift rotorcraft industrial base and the Army’s long-term 

plans to maintain fleet readiness post-FYDP. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing by October 1, 2019, on the following topics: potential readiness impacts to the current CH–47F fleet should Block 

II production be delayed post-FYDP; a cost-benefit analysis comparing the CH–47 Block II upgrade program to CH–47F remanufacture efforts; the impacts to current MH–47G aircraft production 

given the delay of Block II production; the analysis the Army used 

to assess the strategic risk to the industrial base, including the 

supplier base; and the Army’s current strategy for modernizing the 

heavy-lift rotorcraft fleet. 

CH–53K King Stallion program 

The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps validated a requirement for heavy-lift expeditionary rotary wing aviation to support ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore, and shore-to-ship movement of 

personnel and equipment. With the existing heavy lift platform, the 

CH–53E, nearing the end of its service life, the Marine Corps has 

embarked on a procurement effort for the CH–53K King Stallion to 

maintain or improve the current capability. The committee notes, 

however, that this program is at least 19 months behind schedule 

and has experienced cost growth of over 20 percent above the 2005 

baseline. At a cost now estimated to exceed $85 million per aircraft, 

the committee is concerned that the cost of this program is pulling 

resources away from other urgently needed modernization efforts. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Department of the Navy and 

the U.S. Marine Corps to ensure that this program receives sufficient acquisition oversight to eliminate further cost growth and 

schedule delays. 

Close combat lethality task force 

In February 2018, the Secretary of Defense established the Close 

Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF), a cross-functional task 

force charged with improving combat capabilities of infantry formations to increase lethality, survivability, and resiliency on the battlefield. The CCLTF has focused its efforts on reforming manpower 

policy, improving training, and fielding cutting-edge equipment and 

weapons systems for these formations. These efforts are particularly noteworthy as technology proliferation has eroded the comparative advantage of these forces, and, with renewed great power 

competition, it is imperative that the Department of Defense focus 

on investments that support close combat formations that historically account for the majority of U.S. casualties. 

43 

Therefore, the committee urges the Department to continue its 

support of the CCLTF, including through sufficient resourcing of 

the task force and by maintaining the exceptional quality of its 

leadership as well as the direct reporting relationship to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

Columbia-class schedule 

The committee continues to have great interest in actions taken 

by the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop, build, and deploy 

Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. 

The committee notes that a Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report, published on April 8, 2019, titled ‘‘Columbia Class 

Submarine: Overly Optimistic Cost Estimate Will Likely Lead To 

Budget Increases’’ (GAO–19–947), found that challenges with critical new systems, including the integrated power system and common missile compartment, have eroded available lead ship schedule 

margin such that there is less time available to address issues 

without resulting in overall lead ship schedule delays. 

The committee is concerned by these challenges, as well as several other findings in this report, and the associated potential for 

delays in delivering the lead ship of the Columbia-class in fiscal 

year 2028 and deploying the lead ship in fiscal year 2031. 

The committee also notes that the GAO published a report on 

June 6, 2018, titled ‘‘Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides 

Valuable Lessons for Future Investments’’ (GAO–18–238SP), which 

assessed Navy shipbuilding performance over the past 10 years and 

found that each of the 8 most recently delivered lead combatant 

ships (CVN–78, DDG–1000, LCS–1, LCS–2, LHA–6, LPD–17, SSN– 

774, and SSN–775) was delivered to the fleet at least 6 months late 

and 5 of these 8 lead ships were delayed by more than 2 years. 

Therefore, not later than December 1, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the Columbia-class schedule and impact of potential lead ship delays. The report shall include a description of the: (1) Current schedule margin and critical path(s) for 

the lead ship in order to meet planned delivery and deployment 

dates; (2) Potential risks to the lead ship schedule, including the 

associated potential schedule impact for each such risk; (3) Potential operational impacts, shipbuilding impacts, and mitigation options if the lead ship delivery date is delayed by 6 months, 12 

months, 2 years, or 3 years; and (4) Recommendations for congressional or DOD action to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the impact of potential lead ship schedule delays. 

DOD efforts to improve friendly force identification 

The committee acknowledges that the inadvertent loss of U.S. 

military personnel to friendly fire is a long-standing and tragic reality of military operations, including ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

made strides in processes and technologies to help distinguish between friendly and enemy forces, incidents of friendly fire continue 

to exist. The committee is aware that joint terminal air controllers 

use a variety of friendly force identification systems in close air 

support operations and that the DOD continues to seek improveVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
44 

ments in its ability to identify friendly forces. The committee is 

also concerned that ongoing efforts by the DOD to upgrade these 

capabilities are not being adequately coordinated or synchronized 

to ensure the expeditious integration of new technologies and the 

interoperability of these systems as they are fielded. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to evaluate the following issues: 

(1) What actions has the DOD taken to ensure a common understanding of requirements and challenges related to friendly 

force identification by close air support aircraft, including visibility over ongoing efforts to meet those requirements; 

(2) What efforts does the DOD have underway to enhance its 

friendly force identification capabilities, to include efforts to 

identify, evaluate, and incorporate new technologies in an expeditious and cost-effective manner; 

(3) To what extent does the DOD coordinate and communicate friendly force identification requirements and evaluations to ensure that the programs it is developing are complementary and interoperable; and 

(4) Any other issues that the Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to efforts to improve DOD’s 

ability to identify friendly forces and minimize friendly fire incidents. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Future Vertical Lift Capability Set 3 potential acceleration 

The budget request included $31.9 million in PE 63801A within 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army for 

the continued development of the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) as part of the Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) 

family of systems. The FVL family of systems consists of aircraft 

across five capability sets based on size, and the FLRAA effort is 

capability set three. 

The committee understands that the FLRAA platform will replace a portion of the Army’s utility helicopter fleet to provide considerable capability improvements in speed, range, agility, endurance, and sustainability as compared to current legacy utility helicopters. The committee notes that the current acquisition strategy 

for the FLRAA represents a traditional approach. However, the 

committee understands that the Army is considering multiple 

courses of action to accelerate this program through the use of acquisition reform authorities. Further, the committee understands 

that the Army is nearing completion of the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR–TD) effort that successfully demonstrated several transformational vertical lift capabilities and 

technologies. 

Given the substantial investment and knowledge gained by the 

successful JMR–TD, the committee expects the Army to possess a 

much better understanding of the technology readiness levels required for the FLRAA development program. As such, the committee believes that the Army should be in a position to reasonably 

accelerate the FLRAA schedule and acquisition strategy. The comVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
45 

mittee encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider using a 

more tailored acquisition approach for the FLRAA program, to include developing prototypes to expedite the procurement of critical 

technologies. The committee expects that, following any such prototyping effort, the Army would pursue a follow-on production contract using competitive procedures. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 

that details a course of action to accelerate the FLRAA program, 

to include potential use of tailored acquisition strategies, procedures, and authorities with appropriate oversight, management, 

and technical rigor. 

Global Broadcast System Technologies 

The committee recognizes that new Global Broadcast System 

(GBS) technologies and services may be able to augment satellite 

communication (SATCOM) bandwidth for the warfighter at both 

home-base and deployed locations where users continue to struggle 

with congested networks. The GBS is a critical element of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability and, though its primary focus has been to 

transmit full motion video from unmanned aircraft systems to 

tactically deployed forces, it could have value for all types of data 

needed by the warfighter in a deployed or garrison environment. 

Portable, rucksack GBS systems could provide a cost-effective way 

of supporting those goals as the DOD moves into a new era of hybrid SATCOM networks, the innovative use of GBS should be considered as the Department decides on how to provide a holistic solution. 

The committee encourages the DOD to procure and rapidly field 

commercially-available, secure Satellite Portable Receive Suites 

and Rucksack Portable Receive Suites to test their ability and contribute to meeting communications requirements for deployed 

warfighter operations as well as base installation operational training activities. 

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 

in 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 to the force and improving on many of the 

multi-mission warfighting attributes of Oliver Hazard Perry-class 

frigates, including the ability to operate in more contested environments. 

As the Navy prepares to issue the FFG(X) request for proposals, 

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 

46 

reduce acquisition and sustainment costs. The committee encourages the Navy not to sacrifice warfighting capability for other considerations. 

Improved Turbine Engine Program 

The Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) is an acquisition 

program to develop a more powerful engine that would enhance 

performance at high altitudes and at elevated temperatures while 

improving operational readiness of the current UH–60 Blackhawk 

and AH–64 Apache helicopter fleets. The ITEP also has a goal to 

improve fuel efficiency, which will ease the mission of sustainment 

forces. 

The committee notes that this program represents a cost-effective 

approach to modernizing aviation assets. Therefore, the committee 

encourages the Army to pursue opportunities to accelerate the 

fielding of this capability. 

Improving Air Force acquisition and sustainment processes 

The committee notes that the Air Force has identified acquisition 

reform as a key priority and has made progress in taking advantage of authorities that the Congress has provided in recent National Defense Authorization Acts to accelerate prototyping and experimentation. The Air Force reports that it has cut 93 years from 

previous program schedules, and it cites this as a positive indicator 

of progress toward the goal of reducing timelines and enabling 

more agile fielding of systems and technology. 

The committee supports the Air Force’s effort to fully use authorities provided by the Congress to improve its acquisition processes while ensuring that proper internal and external oversight 

over programs is maintained, deployed systems are operationally 

effective and suitable, and systems are developed, deployed, and 

sustained in the most cost-effective and -efficient manner. The committee encourages the Air Force to continue focusing on improvements in these areas while leveraging proven methods to accelerate 

acquisition and sustainment across the total enterprise. 

Marine Corps nano vertical takeoff and landing unmanned 

aerial systems 

The Marine Corps has indicated a need for Nano Vertical Takeoff 

and Landing Unmanned Aerial Systems for the purpose of providing individual squads with an airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability with real time video and 

imagery of the tactical environment. The Army is pursuing a similar solution, the Soldier Borne Sensor program, for its squads and 

small units. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to review 

the Army’s effort, which may help facilitate development of an ISR 

capability that can increase the lethality and survivability of Marine Corps squads. 

Metrics for evaluating potential impacts to airspace 

The committee is aware of ongoing discussions with individual 

project developers, military installations, and the Services regarding proposed energy projects and potential conflicts with military 

airspace needs. The committee urges the Department of Defense to 

47 

also initiate non-project-specific policy-level discussions with industry, affected military installations, and military service leadership 

to develop clearly defined, objective criteria, measures, and metrics 

that provide guidance as to when potential impacts to airspace rise 

to unacceptable levels. This will help installations assess proposed 

projects and assist industry in avoiding areas of concern. 

Mobile aircrew restraint system 

The committee noted in the the Senate report accompanying S. 

1519 (S. Rept. 115–125) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 that the use of the Mobile Aircrew Restraint 

System (MARS) by the U.S. Air Force on its fleet of HH–60 aircraft 

is to provide survivability improvements over legacy restraint systems. The committee encouraged the U.S. Army to utilize available 

testing and approval data from the Air Force for incorporation into 

the UH–60 aircraft fleet. However, there has been little progress 

on the potential incorporation of the MARS on the Army’s UH–60 

fleet. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, on the MARS, 

including: the status of the Army’s Airworthiness Release (AWR) 

on the use of MARS, potential costs to implement AWR modifications, and the timeline to execute AWR implementation. 

Modular rugged power devices 

The committee notes that National Guard units are frequently 

deployed to assist with emergency management situations, including responding to natural disasters. Often in these circumstances, 

the deployed servicemembers cannot depend upon the established 

electrical grid for energy needs in support of the mission, and mobile power generation is critical to support their operations. Therefore, the committee encourages the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau to consider acquiring modular rugged power devices that 

are self-contained and lightweight zero-emission power generation 

systems to meet equipping and energy needs. 

Mounted A–PNT solutions 

Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (A–PNT) solutions 

are critical to the warfighter due to the reliance of military systems 

on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the ability of nearpeer competitors to deny or disrupt access to GPS. In order to address this challenge, the Army has established a cross-functional 

team for A–PNT to ensure that the Army’s ground maneuver forces 

have access to trusted PNT information even in a GPS-denied environment. 

The committee understands that the Army has made progress in 

the fielding of a Mounted A–PNT solution (MAPS) for Army ground 

platforms and encourages the Army to field the most capable solution as quickly as possible. The committee directs the Secretary of 

the Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2019, on the status of the Army’s MAPS program to include fielding timelines, system capabilities, and how the 

system will be scalable and compatible with future upgrades. 

48 

MQ–1 Gray Eagle briefing 

The committee notes the significant capability that the MQ–1 

Gray Eagle fleet of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) provides to 

the Army. This capability is game-changing and reduces risk for 

Army soldiers by providing extended surveillance coverage and the 

ability to self-transit to distant locations by virtue of its long endurance and ease of use, itself deriving from its automatic takeoff 

and landing system, which the aircraft to be launched and recovered with minimal operator interaction. 

The current fleet consists of over 200 Gray Eagle aircraft, half 

of which are the original configuration and the other half are the 

Gray Eagle Extended Range (GE–ER) configuration. The GE–ER is 

the next-generation advanced derivative, providing longer-endurance UAS surveillance, communications relay, and weapons delivery missions in support of maneuver. 

However, the committee is concerned that a mixed fleet of Gray 

Eagle aircraft may not be sufficient to meeting ever increasing 

operational requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, to the Senate 

Armed Services Committee on the capabilities and capacity of the 

MQ–1 Gray Eagle fleet. The briefing shall include: 

(1) A fleet optimization plan to meet long-term surveillance 

requirements in multi-domain operations in support of the National Defense Strategy; 

(2) Potential readiness impacts to the Army of operating a 

mixed fleet of Gray Eagle aircraft; and 

(3) Cost-benefit analysis comparing operations of the current 

mixed fleet of aircraft to operations of a pure GE–ER fleet. 

Multiyear block buy for F–35 

The committee notes that both the production and sustainment 

costs for the F–35 program continue to decrease. However, the committee believes that further savings may be realized through 

multiyear block buy contracts. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition and Sustainment, no later than February 1, 2020, 

to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees that examines the business case for a combined domestic and international 3-to-5 year multiyear contract for procurement of the F– 

35A/B/C, beginning with Lot 15. The report shall include: analysis 

of the appropriate government furnished equipment, such as propulsion systems savings; an assessment of the design stability and 

technical risk, given the Block 4 changes introduced to the baseline 

beginning in Lot 15; and an evaluation of the potential to achieve 

significant net savings for the Department of Defense and international partners through economies of scale. Additionally, the report shall articulate the optimal multiyear contract length for the 

F–35. 

Operational energy of generator sets 

Generator sets used by the Services supply critical power that 

supports the Army’s top modernization priorities to make its soldiers and units more lethal. The committee is pleased with DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
49 

ment of Defense (DOD) efforts to increase fuel efficiency, improve 

combat capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce the cost of 

generators. Specifically, the committee is encouraged by efforts to 

reduce fuel requirements by eliminating the need to operate redundant generator sets. 

The Army and Marine Corps are incorporating microgrid control 

capability on all current 30kW to 60kW generator set models, 

which automatically start and stop generator sets based on load demand. This capability increases fuel savings for the DOD and improves system-level reliability. The committee also encourages the 

Services to incorporate an energy storage module with generator 

sets to provide more energy-efficient power. This ability will further increase system efficiency and reliability, decrease maintenance frequency, enable silent watch operations, and facilitate integration of renewable energy sources. 

Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 

(ISR) and heavy payloads 

The committee remains concerned that the combatant commands 

are not being given sufficient airborne intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) support assets to adequately provide 

force protection, situational awareness, maritime domain awareness (MDA), combat identification, high-precision geolocation, and 

other necessary capabilities to support deployed forces as they execute missions. In their respective testimonies before the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, the Combatant Commanders of U.S. 

Africa Command (AFRICOM), U.S. European Command (EUCOM), 

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDO–PACOM), and U.S. Southern 

Command (SOUTHCOM) all stated that they have significant gaps 

between ISR requirements and ISR capacity. 

Increased ISR could enhance AFRICOM’s Counter-Violent Extremist Organizations missions, EUCOM’s European Deterrence 

Initiative (EDI), INDO–PACOM’s MDA, and SOUTHCOM’s 

counter-narcotics missions. The Commander of INDO–PACOM 

stated that ‘‘ISR is a critical need in the region’’ and that ‘‘less than 

half of my requirements are served by the ISR that’s available in 

the region.’’ The Commander of SOUTHCOM testified that 

SOUTHCOM is ‘‘deficient in [its] ISR for the counter-narcotics mission.’’ He further stated that the Joint Interagency Task ForceSouth (JIATFS) only interdicted about six percent of known drug 

movements. The committee agrees with the testimony of the Commander of EUCOM—that there is a global shortage of high demand, low density assets and that there may be commercial technologies that could help mitigate the capability gaps. 

The committee notes that there are commercial technologies in 

development that could help address many of the combatant commands’ ISR gaps. Heavy payload, solar-powered unmanned aerial 

vehicles (UAV) are being developed that, because of their unique 

power source and electric engines, may be able to operate aloft and 

on station in an enduring, quiet, and persistent manner. These systems present the possibility of basing in friendly territory and deployment in advance of planned missions to provide ISR pre-mission, during the mission, and post-mission. Some solar-powered 

candidate systems have modular designs and payload capacities of 

50 

more than 300 pounds. These assets may be able to serve as a 

multi-intelligence platform able to provide agile sensor suites in response to mission requirements. 

The technological challenge to realizing the potential of such systems would be developing payloads that have overall dependability 

and sufficient reliability to stay aloft and continue performing missions for long periods of time. Such reliability is not usually found 

in current airborne ISR systems. 

The committee supports additional resources for payload improvements and to evaluate a persistent, quiet, heavy payload, 

solar-powered, multi-intelligence ISR asset. 

Personal recovery devices for servicemembers 

As the Army pivots to great power competition and multi-domain 

operations, Assured–Position, Navigation, and Timing (A–PNT) 

technologies will be critical in enabling the U.S. military to conduct 

operations in a Global Positioning System-contested environment. 

Furthermore, the Personnel Recovery Support System (PRSS), 

which includes the PRSS 1b Secure Personal Locator Beacon, can 

leverage A–PNT technology to assist in the location of missing and 

captured servicemembers on the battlefield. 

The committee supports the Army’s initial procurement and deployment of a personal recovery device that can operate in GPS-denied or -degraded environments. In addition, the committee notes 

the Army has stood up a cross-functional team to rapidly assess 

material development solutions to address the A–PNT mission area 

and potential capability gaps. Therefore, the committee encourages 

the Army to continue investment and deployment of proven A–PNT 

solutions and PRSSs. 

Reliability growth of systems on Ford-class aircraft carriers 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report on June 6, 2018, titled ‘‘Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for Future 

Investments’’ (GAO–18–238SP), which assessed Navy shipbuilding 

performance over the past 10 years and concluded that ‘‘. . . the 

Navy’s shipbuilding programs have had years of construction 

delays and, even when the ships eventually reached the fleet, they 

often fell short of quality and performance expectations.’’ 

The committee is concerned that Navy ships are being delivered 

to the fleet with incomplete and underperforming systems, which 

often leads to the reliability of key systems falling short of Navy 

requirements. 

The reliability of key systems on the lead ship in the Ford-class 

of aircraft carriers, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78), is particularly 

concerning. While the Navy accepted delivery of CVN–78 from the 

shipbuilder in May 2017, 20 months later than initially planned, 

reliability measured through September 30, 2018, of four key systems is either orders of magnitude below the Navy’s stated requirement or unknown. 

As reported by the Department of Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in December 2018, through 

the first 747 shipboard launches, the Electromagnetic Aircraft 

Launch System (EMALS) suffered 10 critical failures, well below 

51 

the requirement of 4,166 mean cycles between critical failures, 

where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. Through the 

first 763 attempted shipboard landings, the Advanced Arresting 

Gear (AAG) suffered 10 operational mission failures, well below the 

re-baselined reliability growth curve and well below the requirement of 16,500 mean cycles between operational mission failures, 

where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft. For the Dual 

Band Radar (DBR) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE), only 

engineering reliability estimates, not actual data, have been provided by the Navy to the DOT&E. 

The committee is concerned that inadequate reliability of key 

shipboard systems, such as those on CVN–78, will result in degraded operational performance that will not meet combatant commander needs. 

Therefore, beginning on October 1, 2019, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on the reliability of the EMALS, 

AAG, DBR, and AWE until each system meets its full reliability requirement. Each report shall utilize the DOT&E measures and 

metrics to report measured reliability for each system for the previous fiscal year quarter. Each report shall also include projected 

reliability growth estimates, in graphical and tabular form, to 

achieve the Navy’s reliability requirement for each system with the 

associated schedule. In addition, the reports shall include descriptions of actions being taken to improve the reliability of each system. 

Report on future force design alternatives for Department 

of the Air Force 

While the committee acknowledges that the Air Force force structure report as directed by section 1064 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) recommended that the Air Force grow to 386 squadrons from the current 312, it also observes that this recommendation emerged from 

analysis using current operations plans and concepts of operations. 

The committee believes that alternative force designs could significantly change the inventory requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not 

later than March 1, 2020, on future force design alternatives for 

the Air Force. The Secretary shall ensure that the report includes 

the following matters with an accompanying unclassified summary: 

(1) An assessment of the analysis used to conclude that the 

Air Force requires growth to 386 operational squadrons; 

(2) An assessment of the anticipated global strategic operating environment through 2040; 

(3) Required capabilities and concepts that are common to all 

future force design alternatives; 

(4) Multi-domain command and control architectures and associated communication capabilities required to effectively implement the future force design; 

(5) Prioritized technologies and prototyping required for development and fielding to support the future force design; 

52 

(6) Other capabilities and capacities required for the Air 

Force to be an effective joint and coalition warfighting partner; 

and 

(7) Other matters that the Secretary considers relevant for 

future force designs. 

Report on impact to force structure of using aircraft for 

missile defense 

The committee notes that the 2019 Missile Defense Review 

(MDR) tasked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of 

the Missile Defense Agency to deliver a report on how best to integrate the F–35 into the missile defense system for both regional 

and homeland defense. The committee is concerned that the potential use of air assets to meet theater missile defense requirements 

could put additional mission demand on an already limited force 

structure and is not accounted for in the current Air Force force 

structure planning. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to conduct a study on how this additional mission requirement 

would change combatant commander requests for forces, including 

impacts to basing and Time Phased Force Development Data in 

current war plans. The Secretary shall provide a report consisting 

of the findings of this study to the congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 2020. 

Robotics and autonomous systems 

The committee recognizes the importance and growing role of robotics and autonomous systems on the battlefield. For example, the 

committee acknowledges that the Army’s Robotic and Autonomous 

Systems Strategy and the Functional Concept for Movement and 

Maneuver identifies robotic systems as a critical enabling technology. Further, the committee understands that these capabilities 

at the Brigade Combat Team level may facilitate the effective execution of missions in a contested multi-domain environment. 

With the establishment of cross functional teams and Army Futures Command, the Army is bringing various Department of Defense stakeholders together to explore concepts, ideas, and develop 

potential solutions. The committee urges the Army to continue creating opportunities to explore options in the advancement of emerging robotic and autonomous technologies for fielding at echelon 

across all of its warfighting functions. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, on robotics and 

autonomous systems to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The 

briefing shall include: 

(1) The feasibility, acceptability, and suitability of establishing a Robotic Development Center nested within the 

Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence; and 

(2) The current and future plans to build partnerships with 

institutions of higher education, government laboratories, and 

industry in order to lead the integrated development of prototypes. 

53 

Size, weight, power reductions of naval combat systems 

The committee understands that the Navy and Marine Corps are 

interested in options to reduce the size, weight, and power (SWaP) 

of mission systems. By migrating applications from multiple underutilized servers to fewer optimally-utilized physical servers, the 

Navy may be able to significantly reduce footprint, hardware costs, 

energy costs, and sustainment costs. 

To fully understand the potential opportunity of SWaP reductions in mission systems, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, not later than October 1, 2019, on the Department of the 

Navy’s efforts to reduce the SWaP of such systems. The briefing 

shall include, at a minimum: (1) A description of ongoing SWaP reduction efforts for mission systems; (2) An analysis by the Program 

Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) of programs and projects that could be virtualized on existing PEO IWS 

hardware baselines; (3) An evaluation of the Navy’s ability to 

virtualize and consolidate existing warfare systems onto virtual 

platforms; (4) An assessment of the Navy’s ability to migrate applications to platforms that utilize ‘‘cloud’’-type technology; and (5) An 

estimation of savings that could be achieved through SWaP reduction efforts. 

Small-Unit Support Vehicle replacement 

As the Department of Defense pivots to addressing the demands 

of great-power competition, the committee understands that the 

military must refocus on operating in a cold-weather environment. 

The committee acknowledges that the Small-Unit Support Vehicle 

(SUSV) is uniquely capable of supporting maneuver forces in coldweather and off-road operations. With the capacity to transport 14 

personnel and a footprint of just 1.8 pounds per square inch, the 

SUSV is extremely well-equipped to traverse difficult terrain such 

as deep snow, tundra, mud, swamps, and wetlands. 

However, as the SUSV ages, the readiness and cost of maintaining the fleet of 30-year-old vehicles may become unsustainable. The 

committee notes the U.S. Army’s recent decision to approve the 

Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle as the replacement for the SUSV. 

The committee encourages the Army to procure its entire 163-vehicle Army Acquisition Objective and consider further fielding to attain a fleet similar in size to the SUSV’s original fleet size. Finally, 

the committee encourages other military services to consider joining the Army’s procurement in order to meet their cold-weather, 

all-terrain vehicle transport needs. 

Submarine industrial base and parts availability 

The committee commends the Navy on its efforts to evaluate and 

improve material demand visibility from submarine public shipyards. The committee is aware that the lack of material availability 

for Virginia-class submarine maintenance has contributed to an increased reliance on cannibalization of material from operational 

platforms, consequently decreasing readiness. The committee is 

also aware of efforts to improve and forecast material demand, 

which would enable more timely procurement actions to support 

the public shipyards. 

54 

The committee encourages the Navy to better communicate the 

capability of their submarine forecasting model and its impact on 

material obsolescence and manufacturing capability in industry to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. The committee also encourages the Navy to communicate needs in a timely fashion, such as a need for Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation funding, in order to further reduce material and parts availability issues at public shipyards. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to support 

shipbuilding industrial base initiatives in order to maintain readiness and a strong submarine industrial base. 

Supporting and expanding the submarine sub-contracting 

industrial base 

The committee believes that expanding the capability and capacity of the submarine industrial base workforce is imperative to 

keeping pace with Navy shipbuilding requirements. Numerous 

manufacturing capabilities must be addressed, including the need 

for more qualified and Navy-certified welders. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy-certified welding 

workforce may be insufficient to meet Navy demands on time with 

the required quality. The committee understands that Navy-certified welders must undergo significant training and possess a 

higher level of job skills compared to the standard welding workforce. The committee further understands that the welding of high 

strength submarine steel requires welders to be qualified to MIL– 

STD–1688 and that this work must be performed in Navy-certified 

facilities. 

The committee is aware of the need to support the specific skill 

sets necessary to enable the Navy to achieve the submarine build 

plan. The committee encourages the Navy to conduct a thorough 

assessment of the current workforce and produce a plan for closing 

the gaps in capability and capacity. 

Survivable artillery 

The committee understands that there is a need for self-propelled, survivable 155mm and 105mm howitzer solutions that can 

emplace, fire, and displace rapidly enough to evade enemy counterbattery fires. The committee strongly encourages Army leaders to 

allocate funds to acquire both systems in sufficient quantity to address the requesting units’ immediate needs and to further initiate 

an Army-wide fielding of these enhanced capabilities. Light, selfpropelled 155mm and 105mm artillery systems will substantially 

improve the deterrence posture of the U.S. Army and allied armies 

in Europe and Asia that will face sophisticated, quick-fire counterbattery systems in the event of a conflict. 

Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base 

The committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2020 budget request reduced funding from what was planned in the future years 

defense program for the majority of the Army’s tactical wheeled vehicle fleets, including the Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, the Family 

of Medium Tactical Vehicles, and the Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Trucks. The committee acknowledges that reducing funding 

55 

across the light, medium, and heavy tactical wheeled vehicle fleet 

could threaten the fragile networks of suppliers, many of which are 

small businesses. Such businesses may be forced to exit the defense 

industry or cease operations altogether. In addition, if production 

does not support minimum sustaining rates for the tactical wheeled 

vehicle industrial base, it would impact overall readiness rates by 

reducing the availability of parts and spares. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to pursue predictable funding levels in the future for the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base in order to avoid production breaks that could adversely impact Army readiness and modernization efforts. 

TH–57 replacement 

The committee supports the replacement of the Department of 

the Navy’s current fleet of TH–57 training helicopters with the Advanced Helicopter Training System, included in the President’s 

budget request, to ensure continued training of the student naval 

aviators in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Navy to ensure 

predictable and sufficient funding through the future years defense 

program and to work to expedite procurement of the Advanced Helicopter Training System aircraft, thereby ensuring that rotary-wing 

training is not interrupted. 

UH–1N replacement 

The committee supports the procurement and fielding of the 

MH–139 aircraft as the replacement for the UH–1N. The committee notes that the contract for up to 84 helicopters, training devices and associated support equipment, and operations, maintenance, training systems, and support equipment is valued at $2.4 

billion. The committee also understands that the fielding of the 

MH–139 will close significant mission capability gaps associated 

with the current fleet of UH–1N aircraft. The committee strongly 

encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain predictable 

and sufficient funding through the future years defense program, 

ensuring that the critical missions of nuclear deterrence and transportation of U.S. government and security forces are executed. The 

committee also encourages the Air Force to consider expediting procurement of the MH–139 aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on 

the UH–1N replacement program by October 1, 2019. That briefing 

shall include information on the following topics: 

(1) The timeline for procurement and fielding of the MH–139 

at Minuteman III bases; 

(2) Any military construction projects needed to field the helicopter and cost and schedule for any such projects; 

(3) The program costs to procure and operate the MH–139 

fleet; and 

(4) The implications of potential program delay for procurement or operating and support costs. 

56 

Unmanned aerial systems training locations 

The committee recognizes the vital importance of providing the 

best trained unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operators and maintainers in order to meet operational and training requirements in 

support of the National Defense Strategy. In order to meet the 

unique and specific training requirements for UAS operations, the 

Army needs training locations that possesses dedicated restricted 

air space, favorable weather conditions, access to large military operating areas, varied types of terrain, and available spectrum. 

Therefore, as the Army conducts its assessment of the best possible locations for UAS training, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider the attributes to select a training 

location that: (1) Best meets the requirements of training; and (2) 

Possesses the capability to increase throughput for both initial 

qualification and unit training. Further, before any assessment 

progresses to a stage where specific courses of action are being 

evaluated, the committee directs the Army to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees on specific criteria that will 

be used to conduct the assessment. 

Vehicle Reconnaissance System 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s recent award of the 

Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) program. The committee has been supportive of this program due to the significant need to provide 

squads and small units with enhanced intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. 

The committee is interested in how this program could further 

increase situational awareness in ground combat vehicle operations. Specifically, the committee is interested in the potential for 

adapting the SBS technology to develop a vehicle reconnaissance 

system for use on-board ground combat vehicles and unmanned vehicles. Such a system would allow for on-demand ISR ahead of vehicles and convoys on the move and around stationary vehicles. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the Army and 

Navy to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than 

February 1, 2020, on existing plans for incorporating a vehicle reconnaissance system into both manned and unmanned ground combat vehicles. At a minimum, this briefing should include an assessment of current technologies being examined and other efforts for 

incorporating such systems on current and future vehicle platforms. 

Virginia-class hull treatment briefing 

The committee is aware of press reporting from 2011 and 2017 

that indicated problems with Virginia-class submarine hull treatments, including delamination. 

The committee is concerned that the Virginia-class submarine 

program may continue to experience challenges with hull treatments, including with the ‘‘Mold-in-Place’’ (MIP) material. 

Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, not 

later than October 1, 2019, to provide a briefing to the Senate 

Armed Services Committee that describes the following related to 

the Virginia-class submarine program: (1) Past and current challenges with hull treatments; (2) Percentage of original hull treatVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
57 

ment remaining on each delivered Virginia-class submarine; (3) 

Cost of MIP repair and replacement by Virginia-class submarine 

hull number; (4) Assessment of the operational implications of degraded hull treatments, specifically reduced MIP coverage, including interruptions of operational tasking; (5) Root causes and corrective actions for hull treatment deficiencies; and (6) The approach 

to hull treatments on the Columbia-class submarine program. 

Western Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) for FMS 

The committee acknowledges that the Western Army Aviation 

Training Site (WAATS) in Marana, Arizona, is a premier rotary 

wing training location and is integral to the mission of the U.S. 

Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) to provide trained 

and ready aircrews in support the National Defense Strategy. However, the committee notes that the required increase of U.S. personnel throughput at the USAACE due to pilot shortages in the Active-Duty component, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve 

limits the available training quotas of foreign military students 

sent by our allies and partners. 

The WAATS currently provides both rated and nonrated crew 

flight training for both U.S. and foreign military students in UH– 

60 Blackhawk and UH–72 Lakota aircraft courses and possesses 

excess capacity to assist USAACE throughput. Additionally, the 

WAATS provides hundreds of square miles of airspace specifically 

dedicated to aviation training and an above average number of 

days allowing flight operations. 

Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the Army to 

brief the Senate Armed Services Committee, not later than October, 1, 2019, on the aviation training at the WAATS and include 

the: 

(1) Forecasted schedule for UH–60 and UH–72 flight training 

courses in fiscal years 2020–2023; 

(2) Feasibility and suitability of the WAATS to conduct all foreign military flight training for UH–60 and UH–72 courses; 

(3) Excess capacity at the WAATS, including classrooms, simulators, hangar space, and aircraft parking; and 

(4) Potential expansion of training missions at the WAATS. 

(59) 

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 

Development and acquisition strategy to procure secure, 

low probability of detection data link network capability (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to develop a joint development and acquisition strategy to procure a resilient, low latency, and low probability of detection data link network capability that would enable effective operation in the contested environments highlighted in the National 

Defense Strategy. The strategy’s solution should ensure that the 

network is affordable with minimal impact to existing host platforms and minimal overall integration costs. The CSAF and CNO 

would submit the strategy to the congressional defense committees 

no later than March 1, 2020. 

Additionally, the provision would limit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2020 funds for operation and maintenance for 

the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Office of the 

Secretary of the Navy to 50 percent of those funds until 15 days 

after submission of the plan required in the provision. 

Establishment of secure next-generation wireless network 

(5G) infrastructure for the Nevada Test and Training 

Range and base infrastructure (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision, funded elsewhere in this 

Act, that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a secure fifth generation (5G) wireless network at the Nevada Test and 

Training Range as part of the Department of Defense (DOD) test 

infrastructure in order to provide an advanced cellular range for 

the Department. The committee recognizes the revolutionary effect 

that 5G technology will have on the DOD. However, the committee 

is concerned that the DOD lacks the ability to test and develop tactics to leverage 5G technology as well as to negate enemy use of 

this advanced capability. 

60 

In addition, the provision would require the installation of a secure 5G base infrastructure network at a second location in order 

to improve the DOD’s understanding of the impacts of 5G technology on continental United States base operations. 

Limitation and report on Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 enduring capability (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of any funds for fiscal year 2020 for the 

Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 

2) enduring capability program until the Secretary of the Army 

submits a report to the congressional defense committees containing: (1) An assessment of whether the enduring IFPC Inc 2 requirements are still relevant for the threat anticipated for the period when the program would be fielded; (2) A list of candidate systems considered for IFPC Inc 2, including those developed outside 

of the Army; (3) An assessment of the systems against representative threats; (4) An assessment of other relevant characteristics, including cost of development, cost per round, technological maturity, 

and logistics and sustainment; and (5) A plan for how the Army 

would integrate the chosen system into the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of the Army to 

identify a program of record in the President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2021 that addresses the Army’s responsibility per Department of Defense Directive 5100.01 to ‘‘conduct air and missile 

defense to support joint campaigns,’’ specifically as it pertains to 

defense against supersonic cruise missiles. 

The committee notes that the Army’s plan to procure two Iron 

Dome batteries in accordance with section 112 of the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232) meets the intent of the Congress as an interim solution for defense against cruise missiles. The committee is 

concerned, however, that the Army has artificially constrained the 

options considered for the enduring program, including holding 

some candidate systems to different standards than other systems 

and excluding some options altogether. Further, the committee is 

concerned that the requirements for IFPC Inc 2 are not representative of the current threat posed to U.S. and allied air bases and 

other fixed sites in theater and will be even further disconnected 

from the future threat. The committee commends the efforts of 

Army Futures Command in this area thus far and encourages the 

command to aggressively pursue a technological solution that will 

provide the defense necessary to enable joint theater campaign 

plans. 

Electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development program (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration and 

the Federal Communications Commission, to establish an electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development program for 

fifth-generation wireless network technologies, Federal systems, 

61 

and non-Federal incumbent systems that would focus on expanding 

sharing of electromagnetic spectrum. The committee believes that 

this program is important in assessing the benefits and risks to the 

Department of Defense (DOD) of spectrum sharing and its impacts 

on the warfighter. 

The provision would require, within 180 days, the establishment 

of test beds to demonstrate the potential of cohabitation between 

these systems. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense, in coordination with the appropriate Federal agencies, to 

propose a strategy to integrate Federal and non-Federal electromagnetic spectrum enterprises not later than May 1, 2020. The 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator and 

the Commission, would also provide to the relevant congressional 

committees periodic briefings on the status of the test beds, including the incorporation of sharing technologies into international 

standards, and reports identifying recommendations to facilitate 

sharing frameworks in the bands of electromagnetic spectrum that 

are the subject of the test beds. 

Sense of the Senate on the Advanced Battle Management 

System (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the Air Force’s approach to the Advanced 

Battle Management System (ABMS). The committee is supportive 

of the Air Force’s vision for the ABMS as a system of systems that 

can integrate and fuse data from disaggregated sensors. However, 

the committee remains concerned about the speed of fielding based 

on the current projected end of life for the Joint Surveillance and 

Target Attack Radar System aircraft. 

Modification of proof of concept commercialization program 

(sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make the 

pilot program authorized in section 1603 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66; 10 

U.S.C. 2359 note) permanent. The provision would also add a section that includes commercialization of dual-use technology with a 

focus on priority defense technology areas that attract public and 

private sector funding as well as private sector investment capital, 

including from venture capital firms in the United States. 

Modification of Defense quantum information science and 

technology research and development program (sec. 

217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 234 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) by specifying a list of 

organizations to be consulted in developing the research and investment plan required in the provision and by requiring the Department of Defense to develop, in coordination with appropriate 

Federal entities, a taxonomy for quantum science activities and requirements for relevant technology and standards. 

62 

Technology and National Security Fellowship (sec. 218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

technology and national security fellowship for individuals that 

possess an undergraduate or graduate degree that focuses on 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics course work. 

Direct Air Capture and Blue Carbon Removal Technology 

Program (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of other Federal agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Defense, 

to carry out a program on the research, development, testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of technologies related to blue 

carbon capture and direct air capture. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

National security emerging biotechnologies research and 

development program (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a coordinated research program in emerging biotechnologies. The committee notes that advances are occurring in biotechnology at an intersection of traditional biology, synthetic biology, engineering, and biotechnology. 

Advances in these areas could lead to improvement in many capabilities relevant to defense missions, including enhancing 

servicemembers’ performance, increasing lethality and survivability, and improving battlefield healthcare. This progress could 

also yield commercial advances in areas such as gene editing, 

cloning, and faster development of new drugs and vaccines. 

Such potential advances in emerging biotechnologies include: 

new bacteria or implantable devices that could enhance warfighter 

cognitive and physical performance; improved information and information use to create more realistic computer simulations of 

warfighter physiology; development of biosensors to monitor 

warfighter performance or environmental conditions; engineered 

biomaterials for defense applications; and improved novel woundhealing or casualty care and diagnosis technologies and systems. 

The committee believes that the Department needs a coordinated 

research effort to ensure that programs in this area are consistently aligned to current DOD strategies and informed by global and 

commercial developments in the field. Further, since these technologies may also develop into future threats to the military and 

the Nation, the provision would require the Department to develop 

policies on the control of research information and products as 

needed to protect national security. The provision would further require the Secretary of Defense, in carrying out this program, to develop strong partnerships with industry, universities, and interagency partners so that the DOD can leverage the best investments 

made across the country and world and to ensure that the biotechnology research mission area is served by the best possible 

technical talent and world-class research facilities. 

63 

Cyber science and technology activities roadmap and reports (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to develop a roadmap for the science and technology activities of the Department of Defense in support of the Department’s cyber needs 

and missions. The provision would also require the Under Secretary to submit an annual report on these activities. The committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber research is critical to developing capabilities that will enable the 

warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run. 

Requiring certain microelectronics products and services 

meet trusted supply chain and operational security 

standards (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish, by January 1, 2021, supply chain 

and operational security standards and requirements for microelectronics and to purchase microelectronics and related services to the 

maximum practicable extent from providers that meet these standards. In addition, the provision would require that the Secretary 

ensure that manufacturers of secure microelectronics are able to 

use the same production lines, facilities, and personnel for microelectronics products and related services intended for both Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial end-uses. The provision 

would require the Secretary to take such actions as are necessary 

and appropriate to foster a competitive secure industrial base. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees on the supply chain and operational security standards not later than February 1, 2021. 

The committee believes that changes are needed to the traditional approach to ensuring a supply of trusted microelectronics. 

The current approach is not economical for existing or prospective 

suppliers of trusted microelectronics, because the DOD buys most 

of its microelectronics from purely commercial companies and prevents its trusted suppliers from selling commercially products that 

are built on trusted microelectronics production lines. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to work with Five Eyes 

partners, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, and 

other allies to promote a shared secure microelectronics industrial 

base for secure 5G and other applications. 

The committee believes that the standards and procurement 

preferences that the DOD develops for secure microelectronics 

products and services should be developed such that they are applicable for adoption by the Federal government, our allies, the carriers implementing 5G wireless networks, critical infrastructure, 

and other industrial sectors where security and trust are vital. The 

committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue 

pursuing additional means to secure microelectronics. These include split fabrication approaches, design and engineering innovations to defeat theft and compromise, and other measures to 

achieve security on networks and using devices that are not trusted. 

64 

Technical correction to Global Research Watch Program 

(sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that makes a technical 

correction to section 2365 of title 10, United States Code. 

Additional technology areas for expedited access to technical talent (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add rapid 

prototyping and infrastructure resilience to the technical areas eligible for the rapid contracting processes authorized under section 

217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91). The committee notes that these processes are 

intended to give Department of Defense (DOD) officials expedited 

access to world-class technical talent at universities, for the purposes of providing technical analyses, engineering support, and 

other expert services. The committee notes that the Nation’s universities have significant capacity to support the DOD in these 

ways, as a complement to their current robust efforts in basic research, and that many university faculty and staff already work 

with industry, including the defense industry, in these kinds of activities. Finally, the committee notes that the Secretary of Defense 

has yet to comply with the mandate to establish a contractual 

mechanism to execute the original provision. The committee directs 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment 

and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

to jointly deliver an annotated briefing to the congressional defense 

committees on actions taken to comply with this mandate, no later 

than February 1, 2020. 

Sense of the Senate and periodic briefings on the security 

and availability of fifth-generation (5G) wireless network technology and production (sec. 236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the importance of secure fifth-generation 

(5G) wireless networks for the Department of Defense. The provision would also include a requirement for the Secretary of Defense 

to provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense committees on Department of Defense (DOD) activities to develop and utilize secure 5G wireless networking technology. The committee understands that utilization of secure 5G wireless networking technology will be critical to achieving future warfighting advantages. 

The committee is frustrated by the slow pace of DOD research and 

adoption of these technologies and encourages the DOD to brief the 

committee on all efforts underway to advance secure 5G wireless 

networks. 

Transfer of Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office 

(sec. 237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than March 1, 2020, the transfer of responsibilities for the authority, direction, and control of the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

65 

(USD(R&E)). The committee believes that the mission of the 

CTTSO to ‘‘identify and develop capabilities to combat terrorism 

and irregular adversaries and to deliver these capabilities to Department of Defense components and interagency partners through 

rapid research and development’’ is better aligned with the mission 

and responsibilities of the USD(R&E). Additionally, the provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to report on CTTSO’s efforts in relation to the implementation of the National Defense 

Strategy. 

Briefing on cooperative defense technology programs and 

risks of technology transfer to China or Russia (sec. 238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on cooperative defense technology programs of the Department of Defense and mitigation of the risk of technology transfer, 

relevant to these programs, to the People’s Republic of China or the 

Russian Federation. 

Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 239) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment to award prizes as part of competitions to develop or 

demonstrate technologies relevant to defense missions. The committee notes the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s and 

the Services’ successful use of these types of prize competitions, 

which have spurred the advancement of robotics, driverless cars, 

and cybersecurity technologies. 

Use of funds for Strategic Environmental Research Program, Environmental Security Technical Certification 

Program, and Operational Energy Capability Improvement (sec. 240) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to expend specific amounts appropriated for 

fiscal year 2020 for the Strategic Environmental Research Program, Operational Energy Capability Improvement, and Security 

Technical Certification Program. 

Funding for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear analysis of alternatives (sec. 241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

amount of funding available by $5.0 million for the Department of 

the Navy’s analysis of alternatives regarding a nuclear sealaunched cruise missile (SLCM–N). The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to create a program of record for the 

SLCM–N, a capability that could be carried by U.S. nuclear submarines in the future. 

66 

Review and assessment pertaining to transition of Department of Defense-originated dual-use technology (sec. 

242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to conduct a review of the Department of Defense science and technology 

enterprise’s intellectual property and strategy for awarding exclusive commercial rights to industry partners and submit a report 

summarizing the results of this review to the congressional defense 

committees no later than May 1, 2020. This review would study: 

the Department’s intellectual property and commercialization 

rights management; the Department’s efforts to promote the commercialization of DOD-funded research; the potential for prizebased research as an alternative to traditional research funding; 

and the potential of DOD’s funding of basic and applied research 

for public use and without commercialization monopolies, akin to 

the Extramural Research Program of the National Institutes of 

Health, as an alternative to traditional research funding. 

The committee understands that much of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) science and technology investment and especially its 

basic research—for example, some of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s cybersecurity research—is predicated on 

the transfer of DOD-originated dual-use technology to members of 

the defense industrial base and the broader commercial sector. The 

committee is also aware of a growing body of economics research 

on the frictions associated with intellectual property and exclusive 

commercialization monopolies. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Defense research sciences for counter unmanned aerial vehicle research 

The budget request included $298.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61102A defense research sciences. 

The committee notes the importance of basic research in meeting 

long-term national security needs and supports increased counterunmanned aircraft systems (UAS) university research. The committee is aware of the proliferation and increased capabilities of 

UAS, and research is needed to respond to this growing threat. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $303.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 61102A 

for basic research. 

3D printing research 

The budget request included $86.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61104A university and industry research centers. 

The committee notes the importance of increased basic research 

for fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-term national 

security needs, and the committee supports increased research for 

3D printing. 

67 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million, for a total of $88.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 61104A 

for 3D printing research. 

Cyber Collaborative Research Alliance 

The budget request included $5.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61121A Cyber 

Collaborative Research Alliance. 

The committee notes the importance of cyber basic research and 

supports increased cyber collaboration with the Cyber Collaboration Research Alliance. The committee believes that long-term 

science and technology cyber research is critical to developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in 

cyberspace in the long run. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $10.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 61121A 

for cyber basic research. 

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region 

The budget request included $115.3 million in Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE62143A Soldier 

Lethality Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, for a 

total of $118.3 million, for RDT&E, Army, for PE 62143A for camouflage, concealment, and deception materiel in support of the 

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region. This increase 

would support essential capabilities for Multi-Domain OperationsPacific as described in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded 

priorities list. 

The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S. IndoPacific Command (INDOPACOM) to develop capabilities and operational concepts to maintain or restore the comparative military 

advantage of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and to reduce the risk of executing contingency plans of the Department of 

Defense. As it develops, the Multi-Domain Task Force will have 

significant implications for force posture, force structure, and procurement priorities. Going forward, the committee urges the Department of the Army and INDOPACOM to keep the committee 

fully apprised of developments relating to activities associated with 

the Multi-Domain Task Force. 

Advanced materials manufacturing processes 

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A ground 

technology. 

The committee is aware that advances in novel manufacturing 

could allow for the development of materials and components with 

superior properties and performance. The committee understands 

that the application of modeling tools in the development of new 

manufacturing techniques, such as additive manufacturing, could 

enable the production of new materials that provide increased 

strength, hardness, and ductility. These alloys could be useful in 

applications such as armor and would be a critical enabling technology that could increase warfighter protection. 

68 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for advanced materials manufacturing processes research. 

Biopolymer structural materials research 

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A ground 

technologies. 

The committee notes the importance of earthen structures to 

support force protection missions for deployed forces. To improve 

the protective capacities of these structures, reduce potential harmful medical impacts of many structural materials, and reduce costs 

of building and maintaining these structures, the committee notes 

the value of research in the use of soil microbiological systems and 

biopolymers to improve native soils for military earthen structures 

construction. This type of research is also consistent with the Department of Defense’s emphasis on the importance of synthetic biology and biotechnology to defense missions. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for applied research on biopolymer structural materials. 

Advanced materials for infrastructure 

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A for applied research on ground technology. 

The committee notes the importance of biology research to meet 

long-term national security needs and supports increased research 

on cellulose structural materials that will improve Army force projection capabilities through the development and deployment of 

rapidly manufacturable, lightweight, and low-cost construction materials, structural systems, and bridging systems, including identification and characterization of materials that could be sourced locally during deployment. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for research in cellulose nanocomposite-based structural materials for light weight, lower life 

cycle and logistics costs, and increased use of local materials to 

meet Army requirements. 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle technology 

The budget request included $219.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62145A Next 

Generation Combat Vehicle Technology. 

The Department of Defense faces growing challenges in providing 

increasingly efficient operational energy, when and where it is 

needed to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy. The 

committee understands that the Energy Storage and Power Systems incorporate composite flywheel-based technology and may address several energy objectives for the Army, such as: (1) Increased 

power efficiencies; (2) Maximized use of renewables; (3) Reduced 

system energy consumption with improved size, weight, and power; 

(4) Extended operational duration, reducing the need for energy resupply; and (5) Enhanced environmental characteristics. 

69 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62145A. 

Composite tube and propulsion research 

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62147A long 

range precision fires technology. 

The committee notes the need for improved artillery tubes and 

improved propulsion for 105mm and 155mm howitzers. The committee believes that research to develop technologies for lighter, 

shorter tubes could potentially support stronger propulsion and extend the range of projectiles in support of the National Defense 

Strategy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62147A for composite tube and propulsion research. 

Printed armament components 

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62147A long 

range precision fires technology. 

The committee is aware of continued investment in additive 

manufacturing technologies to rapidly design, prototype, and manufacture critical novel printed armaments components. These technologies could be used to print replacement parts, customizable 

grenades, and embedded electronics. The committee is encouraged 

by progress made toward the eventual goal of fully printing munitions on a single production line in an ammunition plant. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62147A for applied research in long range 

precision fires technology. 

C3I Applied Cyber 

The budget request included $18.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62213A C3I 

Applied Cyber. 

The committee believes that long-term science and technology 

cyber research is critical to developing capabilities that will enable 

the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long 

run. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a 

total of $23.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62213A for applied 

cyber research. 

Female warfighter performance research 

The budget request included $99.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62787A medical technologies. 

The committee notes the importance of leveraging academic research to better understand the unique challenges facing the female warfighter. The committee notes that additional research and 

technology development must be conducted to optimize equipment, 

protective gear, medical treatments, and nutrition for female 

warfighters. The committee also notes that there is a lack of data 

70 

on female warfighter performance in previous studies, which for 

the most part only included males as research subjects—leaving 

servicewomen largely unresearched and yielding a gap in the scientific literature on female performance outcomes under different 

stresses. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, for a total of $102.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62787A 

for additional research on performance of the female warfighter, 

Long duration battery storage 

The budget request included $12.1 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $66.1 million 

was for the PE 0603119A Ground Advanced Technology. 

The committee believes that, in order to improve combat capability and resilience on installations, the Department of Defense 

must invest in and acquire on-site long duration battery storage for 

at least 100 hours, in the event of an intentional or unintentional 

power outage. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 0603119A for the development and 

eventual demonstration of a 100-hour battery for distributed energy assets. 

Computational manufacturing engineering 

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A for 

ground advanced technology. 

The committee understands that defense components are often 

designed and manufactured with assumptions made about the environment in which they will be used. The committee notes that 

collecting data on these systems can be used to optimize their designs through the use of computational materials engineering software. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for computational manufacturing 

engineering. 

Lightweight protective and hardening materials research 

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A ground 

advanced technology. 

The committee understands the importance of conducting material development research to develop lightweight protective and 

hardening materials usable as either a standalone or composite 

protective element. These materials can be applied to a wide range 

of field conditions and environments. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for increased research in lightweight protective and hardening materials. 

Robotic construction research 

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A ground 

advanced technology. 

71 

The committee is aware of the challenges in constructing expeditionary structures for the Department of Defense (DOD). The current methods for building structures on the battlefield present numerous challenges to ensuring warfighter safety, security, and efficiencies. The committee understands that development of a robotic 

arm and robotic vehicle could potentially allow larger structures to 

be built. Therefore, the committee supports an increase in robotic 

construction research. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for robotic construction research. 

Ground vehicle sustainment research 

The budget request included $160.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63462A Next 

Generation Combat Vehicle Advanced Technology Development. 

The committee notes the potential for using emerging additive 

manufacturing techniques for on-demand production of replacement parts, in both depot repair and deployed environments. The 

committee notes that more work remains to be done to improve 

these manufacturing techniques, understand the materials being 

produced by these techniques, and ensure that the materials meet 

all safety and reliability standards. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63462A for ground vehicle sustainment 

research on the use of additive manufacturing for advanced technology development. 

Next generation combat vehicle advanced technology for 

fuel cell propulsion and autonomous driving control 

The budget request included $160.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63462A Next 

Generation Combat Vehicle Advanced Technology. 

The committee notes the importance of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion and autonomous driving control and encourages the Department of Defense to continue research in this area to maintain a 

military advantage. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63462A for advanced technology development in fuel cell propulsion and autonomous driving control. 

Hypersonics testing research 

The budget request included $174.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63464A long 

range precision fires advanced technology. 

The committee notes that the development of hypersonics capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy and represents an area of intense technological competition between the 

United States, People’s Republic of China, and Russian Federation. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63464A for hypersonics research and testing. 

72 

Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) 

The budget request included $459.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63801A Aviation Advanced Development, of which $31.9 million is for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Capability Set 3 

(CS3). 

The Army also identified on the unfunded priority list a shortfall in funding of $75.6 million for PE 63801A to accelerate the CS3 

program. 

The committee notes that the current acquisition strategy for 

FLRAA/CS3 represents a traditional approach; however, the committee understands that the Army is considering multiple courses 

of action to accelerate this program through the use of acquisition 

reform authorities. Further, the committee understands that the 

Army recently completed the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration effort that successfully demonstrated several transformational vertical lift capabilities and technologies. As such, the 

committee believes that the Army should be in a position to reasonably accelerate the FLRAA/CS3 schedule and acquisition strategy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.6 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63801A. 

Hypersonic weapon system 

The budget request included $228.0 million in in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64182A 

Hypersonics. The Chief of Staff of the Army identified a shortfall 

in funding for this program in his unfunded priorities list. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $130.6 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64182A to accelerate the development of hypersonic weapon systems. 

Next Generation Squad Weapon—Automatic Rifle 

The budget request included $106.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64601A Infantry Support Weapons, of which $33.1 million is for Next Generation 

Squad Weapon—Automatic Rifle. The Army also identified a shortfall in funding of $19.9 million 

for PE 64601A to fund rapid prototyping agreements on the unfunded priority list. 

The committee acknowledges the need to improve close combat 

lethality in support of the National Defense Strategy and the need 

to field weapon systems that improve standoff, ballistics, and penetrating power. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.9 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64601A. 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army 

The budget request included $142.8 million in Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65018A Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army. 

The committee is concerned about unjustified cost growth and 

poor business process reengineering. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $142.8 million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65018A. 

73 

Army contract writing system 

The budget request included $19.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65047A Army 

Contract Writing System. 

The committee remains concerned about duplication among the 

Services in contract writing systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.7 million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65047A. 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 

The budget request contained $243.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2—Block 1. Of 

this, $73.2 million was requested to support the interim IFPC solution and $39.3 million was proposed to support the enduring solution, in accordance with section 112 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232). 

The committee notes that, while the Army in February 2019 

issued a letter of intent to procure two batteries of Iron Dome to 

meet the requirement articulated in section 112 of the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232) for an interim cruise missile defense capability, this decision was predicated on submission and approval of 

an above threshold reprogramming (ATR) by mid-April 2019. Because of the delay in submission of the ATR to the congressional 

defense committees, the committee is concerned that the Army will 

be unable meet the statutory requirement for interim base defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a realignment elsewhere in 

this report that would support procurement of two Iron Dome batteries with fiscal year 2020 funds. The committee notes that, 

should the ATR be fully approved before the end of fiscal year 

2019, this realignment would no longer be necessary. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.6 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A for IFPC Increment 2 for 

Iron Dome testing and delivery. 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 EMAM 

The budget request included $243.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2—Block 1. The 

request includes $124.2 million for the development of the Expanded Mission Area Missile interceptor. The committee believes 

that funds for the development of the interceptor, before a defined 

solution for the enduring IFPC Increment 2 is selected, are ahead 

of need. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $124.2 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A. 

Multi-Domain Artillery 

The budget request included $243.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2—Block 1. The 

74 

Chief of Staff of the Army requested funding for Multi-Domain Artillery in his unfunded priorities list. 

The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S. IndoPacific Command (INDOPACOM) to develop capabilities and operational concepts to maintain or restore the comparative military 

advantage of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and to reduce the risk of executing contingency plans of the Department of 

Defense. As it develops, the command’s Multi-Domain Task Force 

will have significant implications for force posture, force structure, 

and procurement priorities. Going forward, the committee urges 

the Department of the Army and INDOPACOM to keep the committee fully apprised of developments relating to activities associated with the Multi-Domain Task Force. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A for multi-domain artillery. 

Ground Robotics Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport 

(S–MET) 

The budget request included $41.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65053A 

Ground Robotics, Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S– 

MET). 

The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $12.8 million 

from PE 65053A within RDT&E, Army, for S–MET to line 138 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA). 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.8 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65053A. 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle 50mm gun 

The budget request included $378.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65625A 

Manned Ground Vehicle. 

The Army also identified a shortfall in funding of $40.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65625A on the unfunded priority list for 

the procurement of 15 XM–913 weapon systems (50mm gun, ammunition handling system, and fire control hardware). 

The committee acknowledges the need to improve lethality for 

the Next Generation Combat Vehicle to retain overmatch in support of the National Defense Strategy and the need to field weapon 

systems that improve standoff and survivability. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65625A for 50mm gun upgrades. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

The budget request included $2.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65812A Joint 

Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Engineering and Manufacturing Development. 

The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $4.5 million 

from line number 6 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), to PE 

65812A in RDT&E, Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65812A. 

75 

Cybersecurity threat simulation research 

The budget request included $14.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64256A Threat 

Simulator Development. 

The committee notes the importance of cybersecurity to longterm national security needs and supports increased research in cybersecurity threat simulation to model emerging and proliferating 

threats to weapons systems and networks. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64256A. 

Directed energy test capabilities 

The budget request included $334.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65601A Army 

Test Ranges and Facilities. 

The committee notes that directed energy is a key technology for 

the implementation of the National Defense Strategy. The committee further notes that the FY 2018–FY 2028 Strategic Plan for 

DOD T&E Resources indicated that the demand for directed energy 

test capabilities will soon expand from demand for testing to address specific objectives of laboratory demonstrations to demand for 

testing to address requirements for validating a weapon system for 

operational use. The plan also indicated that past and projected activities point to the necessity for growth in directed energy test capability and workforce and called for increased collaboration across 

the directed energy technology development and test communities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65601A to fund directed energy test 

range capabilities. 

CD ATACMS 

The budget request included no funding in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 23802A Other 

Missile Product Improvement Programs. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army requested funding in his unfunded priorities list for Cross-Domain 

Army Tactical Missile Systems (CD ATACMS). 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.1 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 23802A for the CD ATACMS. 

Nanoscale materials manufacturing 

The budget request included $59.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 78045A End 

Item Industrial Preparedness Activities to support Army manufacturing technology activities. 

The committee notes that the government-wide National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which includes the Department of Defense, has highlighted that nanotechnology research, and the eventual nanomanufacturing of products, requires advanced and often 

very expensive equipment and facilities. Further the NNI program 

has indicated that, in order to realize the potential of nanotechnology, agencies should invest heavily in nanomanufacturing research 

and infrastructure. 

76 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 78045A to increase Army efforts in 

developing nanoscale materials manufacturing capabilities. 

Navy 

University Research Initiatives 

The budget request included $116.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 61103N University Research Initiatives. 

The committee notes the importance of basic research in supporting long-term national security needs and supports increasing 

cyber basic research. The committee believes that long-term science 

and technology cyber research is critical to developing capabilities 

that will enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $126.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 61103N 

for basic research. 

Carbon capture increase 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied Research. 

The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act the committee 

recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as 

the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, to carry out a program on research, development, testing, evaluation, study, and 

demonstration of technologies related to blue carbon capture and 

direct air capture. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for electric propulsion research for carbon capture. 

Electric propulsion research 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied Research. 

The committee supports increased electronic propulsion research 

to support the Navy’s emerging need to align platform electric 

power systems with mission systems development and to address 

the importance of energy management and storage as part of integrated power and energy systems solutions for naval ships and vessels. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for electric propulsion research. 

Energy resilience research 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied Research. 

77 

The committee notes that, as the Navy develops and fields increasing numbers of high-power sensors and weapon systems, the 

importance of the energy resilience of these systems continues to 

increase. Energy resilient systems will improve performance, reduce costs, and reduce logistical burdens on operational forces. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for energy resilience research. 

Force protection applied research 

The budget request included $119.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62123N Force 

Protection Applied Research. 

The committee supports a program reduction to increase coordination of activities in material research across the Department of 

Defense to reduce duplication of effort. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N. 

Test bed for autonomous ship systems 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied Research. 

The committee understands that autonomous naval vessels could 

be required to operate for more than a month between performances of human-assisted maintenance. As a result, the machinery 

on such vessels must be robust, resilient, and reliable, requiring 

the ability to avoid failures, repair damage, and redirect systems 

as needed. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N. 

Interdisciplinary cyber research 

The budget request included $56.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62131M Marine Corps Landing Force Technology. 

The committee notes the importance of cybersecurity to longterm national security needs and supports increased interdisciplinary cybersecurity research. The committee believes that long-term 

science and technology cyber research is critical for developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in 

cyberspace in the long run. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, for a total of $59.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62131M 

for interdisciplinary cyber research. 

Common picture applied research 

The budget request included $49.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62235N Common Picture Applied Research. 

The committee supports a program reduction in common picture 

applied research and encourages the Navy to increase coordination 

of space activities with other research activities throughout the Department of Defense. 

78 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, 

for a total of $44.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62235N. 

Applied warfighter safety and performance research 

The budget request included $63.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62236N 

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. 

The committee notes the importance of warfighter safety and 

performance research in enhancing the individual performance of 

elite operators under adverse and extreme conditions. The committee is aware that research to study and mitigate the effects of 

stresses to human safety, performance, and resilience, especially 

undersea, will result in better care for warfighters conducting missions that require exposure to extreme environments. The committee supports increased research to address undersea diving 

stresses, including: pressure extremes, extended low temperature 

exposure, neurologic dysfunction, and chemical and oxygen toxicity. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million, for a total of $65.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62236N 

for applied warfighter safety and performance research. 

Electromagnetic systems applied research 

The budget request included $83.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62271N Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research. 

The committee supports a program reduction in electromagnetic 

systems applied research and encourages the Navy to increase coordination in electronic warfare activities with the rest of the Department of Defense’s related activities to reduce duplication of effort. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, 

for a total of $78.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62271N. 

Navy industry-university undersea vehicle technologies 

The budget request included $57.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62747N Undersea Warfare Applied Research. 

The committee notes that the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 

Assessment’s recent report titled ‘‘The Emerging Era In Undersea 

Warfare’’ noted that ‘‘America’s superiority in undersea warfare is 

the product of decades of research and development (R&D), a sophisticated defense industrial base, operational experience, and 

high-fidelity training. This superiority, however, is far from assured.’’ The committee notes the importance of industry-university 

partnerships and recognizes their valuable role in advancing undersea vehicle technology to support undersea warfare capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million, for a total of $64.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62747N 

for university-industry partnerships in applied research to support 

undersea warfare capabilities. 

79 

USMC Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) 

The budget request included $172.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63640M United 

States Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration. 

The committee supports a program reduction in order to consolidate efforts in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and similar 

areas in which separate research and development activities are occurring across the Services and to ensure coordination and reduce 

duplication of effort across the Department of Defense. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in 

RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63640M. 

Mobile Unmanned/Manned Distributed Lethality Airborne 

Network 

The budget request included $172.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63640M United 

States Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration. 

The committee supports the development of capabilities to further the ability of aircraft, sensors, and command and control assets to share information and recognizes that the mobile unmanned/manned distributed lethality airborne network, one such 

capability, is listed on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list. The committee is concerned that the lack of funding in 

fiscal year 2020 will delay the development of an objective system. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63640M for the continued maturation and 

development of the mobile unmanned/manned distributed lethality 

airborne network. 

Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) advance technology development 

The budget request included $133.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63801N Innovative Naval Prototypes advance technology development. 

The committee supports a program reduction in innovative naval 

prototype development in the area of electronic maneuver and encourages continued coordination of these efforts across the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, 

for a total of $127.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63801N for 

naval prototype development in the area of electronic maneuver. 

Littoral battlespace sensing autonomous undersea vehicle 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $32.6 million 

was for PE 63207N Air and Ocean Tactical Applications. 

The committee understands that additional funding could provide for the procurement of 1 additional REMUS 600 littoral 

battlespace sensing autonomous undersea vehicle, which would accelerate the achievement of Navy inventory goals. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million, for a total of $38.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63207N. 

80 

Large unmanned surface vessels 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $507.0 million was for PE 63502N Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures. 

The committee notes that the budget request for this program 

element provides for the prototyping and testing of Large Unmanned Surface Vessels (LUSV), including procurement of two additional LUSVs in conjunction with a Strategic Capabilities Office 

(SCO) initiative, in project 3066. The committee understands that 

the two LUSVs procured by the SCO beginning in fiscal year 2018, 

at a cost of $237 million, are sufficient to achieve the objectives of 

the SCO initiative, which is scheduled to be completed in the 

fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021. 

The committee is concerned that the budget request’s concurrent 

approach to LUSV design, technology development, and integration 

as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for envisioned missions pose excessive acquisition risk for additional LUSV procurement in fiscal 

year 2020. The committee is also concerned by the unclear policy 

implications of LUSVs, including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel standards and the legal status of armed or 

potentially armed LUSVs. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy’s ‘‘Report to 

Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of 

Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020’’ acknowledges similar issues: 

‘‘Unmanned and optionally-manned systems are not accounted for 

in the overall battle force[.] . . . The physical challenges of extended operations at sea across the spectrum of competition and 

conflict, the concepts of operations for these platforms, and the policy challenges associated with employing deadly force from autonomous vehicles must be well understood prior to replacing accountable battle force ships.’’ 

The committee believes that further procurement of LUSVs 

should occur only after the lessons learned from the current SCO 

initiative have been incorporated into the next solicitation to enable incremental risk reduction. 

In addition, the committee believes that the LUSV program, 

which appears likely to exceed the Major Defense Acquisition Program cost threshold, would benefit from a more rigorous requirements definition process, analysis of alternatives, and deliberate 

acquisition strategy. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $372.5 million, for a total of $134.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63502N. 

Advanced submarine system development 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $148.8 million was for PE 63561N Advanced Submarine System Development. 

The committee understands that emergent repairs are needed at 

the Acoustic Research Detachment located in Bayview, Idaho, to 

prevent delays in critical test programs. 

81 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $153.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63561N. 

Large Surface Combatant concept advanced design 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $81.8 million 

was for PE 63563N Ship Concept Advanced Design. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations stated 

in March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface Combatant 

(LSC) class of ships, that the ‘‘. . . first question that we have to 

do is prove to ourselves that we need a large surface combatant. 

What is the unique contribution of something like that in the face 

of all these emerging technologies? Right now the discussions point 

to the fact that it brings a unique capability in terms of hous[ing] 

larger types of weapons, larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger sensor[.]’’ 

Given the uncertain requirements for the next LSC class of ships 

and the lack of clarity on the new systems under consideration for 

such class, including the associated technical maturity of such systems, the committee believes that funding design efforts for a new 

LSC class is early to need. 

The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps, set 

LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those related to 

propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design efforts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $24.0 million, for a total of $57.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63563N. 

Large Surface Combatant preliminary design 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $69.1 million 

was for PE 63564N Ship Preliminary Design and Feasibility Studies. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations stated 

in March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface Combatant 

(LSC) class of ships, that the ‘‘... first question that we have to do 

is prove to ourselves that we need a large surface combatant. What 

is the unique contribution of something like that in the face of all 

these emerging technologies? Right now the discussions point to 

the fact that it brings a unique capability in terms of hous[ing] 

larger types of weapons, larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger sensor[.]’’ 

Given the uncertain requirements for the next LSC class of ships 

and the lack of clarity on the new systems under consideration for 

such class, including the associated technical maturity of such systems, the committee believes that funding design efforts for a new 

LSC class is early to need. 

The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps, set 

LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those related to 

propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design efforts. 

82 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $46.6 million, for a total of $22.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63564N. 

Advanced surface machinery system component prototyping 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $25.4 million 

was for PE 63573N Advanced Surface Machinery Systems. 

The committee notes the Chief of Naval Operations stated in 

March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface Combatant (LSC) 

class of ships, that the ‘‘. . . first question that we have to do is 

prove to ourselves that we need a large surface combatant. What 

is the unique contribution of something like that in the face of all 

these emerging technologies? Right now the discussions point to 

the fact that it brings a unique capability in terms of hous[ing] 

larger types of weapons, larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger sensor[.]’’ 

In addition, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Seapower 

on March 27, 2019, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition stated in response to a question related to actions necessary to improve acquisition performance on lead ships, ‘‘The second piece is really improved sub-system 

prototyping like we have done on Columbia. Try and get everything 

prototyped as soon as we can. [The Navy] learn[ed] some lessons 

on Ford by not having land-based prototypes for all the subsystems.’’ The committee supports the Assistant Secretary’s intent 

to improve sub-system prototyping well in advance of difficult-to-reverse ship design decision points. 

The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps, set 

LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those related to 

propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design efforts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $125.0 

million, for a total of $150.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 

63573N for advanced surface machinery system component prototyping. 

Columbia-class submarines 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $419.1 million was for PE 63595N Columbia-class submarines. 

The committee understands that additional funding could enable 

reductions in the production time and cost of propulsor components 

for Columbia-class submarines through development of composites 

technology. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $434.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63595N. 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $108.5 million was for PE 63596N Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission modules. 

83 

The committee notes that an operational testing period of the 

surface warfare mission package was delayed from fiscal year 2018 

to fiscal year 2019. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $103.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63596N 

for LCS mission modules. 

U.S. Marine Corps Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot Program 

The budget request included $4.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64289M Next 

Generation Logistics. 

The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) has 

fielded 165 3D Printers, 5 metal printers, and 1 prototype concrete 

printer across the fleet and is seeing great benefit from their use 

through innovative programs like Marine Maker. However, the digital infrastructure to create, support, document, and provide a digital thread, digital twin, and augmented reality capability for the 

parts being manufactured and used is non-existent. The USMC 

needs an Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot Program 

and formally highlighted this need in its unfunded priorities list. 

The pilot program would use commercial-off-the-shelf software and 

services to support several use cases and lay the groundwork for 

providing the digital infrastructure for all USMC next generation 

additive manufacturing activities. Funding would cover government 

costs, software procurement, and services support work at multiple 

US locations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million, for a 

total of $13.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64289M to fund the 

USMC Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot Program. 

Nuclear sea-launched cruise missile 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $19.7 million 

was for PE 64659N for the Precision Strike Weapon Development 

Program. Of this, $5.0 million was designated for a nuclear sealaunched cruise missile analysis of alternatives (AoA). 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this 

AoA, for a total of $24.7 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64659N. 

V–22 nacelle improvement program 

The budget request included $185.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64262N for the 

V–22. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Common Configuration–Readiness and Modernization (CC–RAM) nacelle improvement program for better reliability and commonality across 

the fleet of V–22s. Reduced vibrations in nacelles decreases maintenance degraders and costs while increasing readiness rates. The 

committee encourages the Navy and Marine Corps to test, develop, 

and incorporate active vibration control systems for the V–22 nacelles as part of the overall nacelle improvement program. 

84 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64262N for nacelle improvements on the 

V–22. 

Mine Development—Quickstrike JDAM ER 

The budget request included $29.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64601N Mine 

Development. The Chief of Naval Operations requested funding in 

his unfunded priorities list for the Quickstrike Joint Direct Attack 

Munition Extended Range (JDAM ER). 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $71.3 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64601N for the Quickstrike JDAM 

ER. 

Information Technology Development 

The budget request included $384.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 65013N Information Technology Development, including $55.4 million for Electronic Procurement System. 

The committee is concerned about developing unnecessarily bespoke contract writing systems and processes. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.4 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 65013N. 

CH–53K King Stallion program 

The budget request included $517.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 65212M CH– 

53K RDTE. 

The committee recognizes that the U.S. Marine Corps validated 

a requirement for heavy-lift expeditionary rotary wing aviation to 

support ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore, and shore-to-ship movement 

of personnel and equipment. The committee recently approved an 

above-threshold reprogramming request for additional funding to 

continue developmental testing external to the fiscal year 2020 

budgeting cycle. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 65212M. 

Ship to Shore Connector 

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $4.9 million 

was for PE 65220N Ship to Shore Connector. 

The committee understands that additional funding could enable 

quality improvements and cost reductions in the Ship to Shore 

Connector and Landing Craft Air Cushioned programs through expanded development and use of composite materials. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $19.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 65220N. 

Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems 

The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $88.4 million 

was requested for PE 24311N Integrated Surveillance System. 

85 

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 that capability 

or capacity gaps may result if additional TRAPS units are not procured in fiscal year 2020. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $103.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 24311N 

for TRAPS. 

Intelligent Power Management Systems 

The budget request included $37.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 26624M Marine Corps Combat Services Support, of which $3.0 million is for 

Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Combat Service Support 

Element & Supporting Establishment (CSSE & SE). 

The committee recognizes the need for the Marine Corps to reduce logistical requirements in forward deployed areas. Intelligent 

Power Management Systems (IPMS) provide a robust, modular, 

and scalable solution to interconnect, control, store, and distribute 

power from various sources. As a result, with IPMS, power requirements will be met in a more efficient manner by matching power 

production to load demand, reducing spinning reserve, extending 

maintenance cycle times, and reducing fuel consumption. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 26624M for MAGTF CSSE & SE. 

Air Force 

High energy X-ray materials structures research 

The budget request included $128.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62102F applied research in advanced materials. 

The committee notes the importance of advanced materials high 

energy X-ray research for better understanding the characteristics 

and performance of advanced materials and structures for Air 

Force missions, including high temperature engine materials, advanced sensors, and aerodynamic systems. The committee notes 

that the Department of Defense would benefit from leveraging National Science Federation and Department of Energy investments 

in facilities to support Air Force research needs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62102F for high energy x-ray materials structures research. 

Materials research 

The budget request included $128.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62102F applied research in materials. 

The committee notes that there is duplicative funding for material research within the budget request and encourages increased 

coordination within the Department of Defense. 

86 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62102F. 

Aerospace Vehicle Technologies 

The budget request included $147.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62201F 

aerospace vehicle technologies. 

The committee believes that the increase of these activities is not 

fully aligned with other efforts and supports a reduction in program growth for aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in 

RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62201F. 

Counter unmanned aerial systems research 

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62788F 

dominant information sciences and methods. 

The committee notes that counter-swarm capabilities are becoming more critical for Department of Defense (DOD) force protection. 

Currently, various development and acquisition activities are underway to counter the swarming unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

threat, and DOD entities are currently testing several potential 

system solutions, but, to date, no approach provides a complete answer to the threat. The committee further notes the importance of 

increased cyber research and supports increasing cyber and communications research to support counter-UAS capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for counter-UAS research. 

Cyberspace dominance technology research 

The budget request included $181.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62788F 

dominant information sciences and methods. 

The committee notes the importance of increased support for academic cyber institutes to meet long-term national security needs in 

support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee believes 

that long-term science and technology cyber research is critical to 

developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to maintain 

dominance in cyberspace in the long run. The committee also understands that the Department of Defense requires technologies to 

deliver a full range of options in cyberspace, akin to its current air 

and sea dominance programs, to achieve cyber dominance. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for research in cyberspace dominance technology research. 

Quantum science research 

The budget request included $181.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62788F 

dominant information sciences and methods. 

The committee notes the importance of quantum science research 

for the implementation of the National Defense Strategy and in the 

priorities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. This technical area shows great promise in enhancing deVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
87 

fense capabilities in communications, computing, cryptography, and 

countless other areas. The committee notes that there is a global 

competition for preeminence in this emerging field. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for quantum science research. 

High power microwave research 

The budget request included $44.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 62890F 

High Energy Laser Research. 

The committee supports increased research in high power microwaves as an element of an emerging set of directed energy technologies that support the National Defense Strategy and the priorities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. High powered microwave capabilities could defeat adversary 

electronics systems and create other battlefield effects. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62890F for additional high powered 

microwave research. 

Metals affordability research 

The budget request included $36.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63112F 

Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems. 

The committee notes that the Metals Affordability Initiative is a 

collaborative effort, which includes the entire domestic specialty 

aerospace metals industrial manufacturing base, to ensure the continued advancement of metals technologies for the defense and 

commercial sectors and continues to grow a robust and responsive 

aerospace metals domestic supply base that provides critical turbine engine, airframe, and space components at lower cost and 

with shortened production lead times. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million, for a total of $38.6 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

63112F for metals affordability research. 

Acceleration of development of hypersonic quick reaction 

capability and hypersonic airbreathing weapon 

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63211F 

Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration. 

The committee notes that the development of hypersonics capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy and represents an area of intense technological competition between the 

United States, People’s Republic of China, and Russian Federation. 

The committee is encouraged by and supportive of the Air Force’s 

activities in hypersonic weapons. 

However, the committee is concerned that there is a lack of focus 

on air-launched and air-breathing hypersonic capability inside the 

Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $75.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for 

the continued development and transition of the Hypersonic Air 

Breathing Weapons Concept. 

88 

Shape morphing aircraft structures development 

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63211F 

Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstrations. 

The committee notes ongoing research that supports the design 

and manufacture of shape-morphing aircraft control surfaces, including wings, winglets, inlets, and stabilizers that have demonstrated reduced drag, increased fuel savings, and decreased 

maintenance requirements for Air Force platforms. The committee 

believes that research in this area will support improving the performance of and reducing operational and life cycle costs for air 

platforms. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for research in shape 

morphing materials for active winglets. 

Combat Search and Rescue advanced prototyping 

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63211F 

Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration. 

The committee supports the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s request for additional funds for a high speed vertical lift demonstration, such as Agility Prime, to prove the employment of non-runway jet operations in a contested environment, which could be crucial to the Air Force’s ability to develop a lethal, agile, and resilient 

force posture and employment. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for the continued development of Agility Prime. 

Low Cost Attributable Aircraft Technology 

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63211F 

Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration. 

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 Attributable Aircraft 

Technology (LCAAT) program for collaborative pairing with 

manned platforms, potentially including the F–35. The committee 

views the combined application of commercial technology, autonomy, and artificial intelligence as an innovative solution to meeting 

the demands of the National Defense Strategy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for the continued development and transition of the LCAAT. 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology 

The budget request included $114.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63216F 

Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology. 

The committee understands the importance of developing and 

demonstrating core engine technologies for small turbines used in 

current and future aircraft, missile, and remotely piloted aircraft 

propulsion systems. The committee believes that improved techVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
89 

nologies in this area could reduce cost, improve mission flexibility, 

and increase aircraft range. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $124.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

63216F. 

Electronic combat technology 

The budget request included $48.4 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63270F 

Electronic Combat Technology. 

The committee notes that there is duplicative electronic warfare 

and positioning, navigation, and timing research being performed 

across the Department of Defense and encourages increased coordination to reduce duplication of effort. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million, for a total of $38.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

63270F. 

Advanced spacecraft technology 

The budget request included $70.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63401F 

Advanced Spacecraft Technology. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) relies extensively on weapons and communication systems 

that must operate in environments with high levels of ambient radiation. The committee notes a lack of commercially available technologies that meet these requirements and also notes the importance of DOD research on strategic radiation hardened microelectronic processors. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, for a total of $73.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

63401F for advanced research on radiation-tolerant systems. 

Advanced materials and materials manufacturing 

The budget request included $43.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63680F 

Manufacturing Technology Program. 

The committee notes the importance of supporting mitigations 

for industrial base vulnerabilities, including those identified in the 

September 2018 Department of Defense report titled ‘‘Assessing 

and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base 

and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States’’ and the August 

2018 MITRE Corporation report titled ‘‘Deliver Uncompromised: A 

Strategy for Supply Chain Security and Resilience in Response to 

the Changing Character of War.’’ The committee notes that strong 

partnerships between academia and the aerospace industry can 

support original equipment manufacturers with research and development in advanced materials. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63680F. 

90 

Battlespace knowledge and development demonstration 

The budget request included $56.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 63788F 

Battlespace Knowledge Development and Demonstration. 

The committee notes the importance of increased cyber applied 

research and supports increasing cyber and command and control 

research. The committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber research is critical to developing capabilities that will 

enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in the 

long run. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $64.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

63788F for increased cyber applied research. 

M-Code acceleration—advanced component development & 

prototypes 

The budget request included $92.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64201F Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resiliency, Modifications, and 

Improvements. 

The committee understands the importance of the ability of the 

Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide resilient position, navigation, and timing capability to the Joint Force and acknowledges 

GPS Military-Code receiver development’s presence on the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64201F for Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System modernization. 

Rapid repair and sustainability increase 

The budget request included $128.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64858F 

Tech Transition Program. 

The committee notes that advanced repair and qualification processes can repair parts damaged, worn, or corroded in service without introducing undesirable distortion. The committee further notes 

that additional funds are needed to establish a means to qualify repair components to increase readiness by bringing systems back 

into service faster. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64858F for rapid repair and sustainability. 

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent 

The budget request included $570.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 65230F 

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). 

The committee understands that the Air Force has chosen to consolidate an existing program into a similar element of the GBSD 

and that this approach will reduce risk and may save $850 million 

across the life of the programs. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65230F. 

91 

Light Attack experiment 

The budget request included $35.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 27100F 

Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance Squadrons. 

The committee supports the increase of combat capability and 

readiness at a reduced cost and the development of advanced capabilities for close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction. The committee also supports the Department of Defense’s intent to lower the cost of countering violent extremism in accordance 

with the National Security Strategy. However, the committee is 

concerned that the pace of research and prototyping in this area 

has not kept pace with the threat or the current capability available to the Department. 

Additionally, the committee is aware that, on a modern battlefield, it is expected that friendly forces will be in close proximity 

to the enemy and will require integrated joint fires in order to 

achieve the effects demanded by the Joint Force Commander. The 

committee believes that the Department of Defense has been slow 

to develop and field capabilities to provide battlefield situational 

awareness of enemy and friendly actors. The committee is also 

aware of current technical solutions that would provide the required identification of friend and foe in environments, like that in 

which close air support is demanded, in which the friendly forces 

are in close proximity to the enemy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE27100F to conduct additional 

RDT&E. 

Cyber National Mission Force capabilities 

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 36250F 

Cyber Operations Technology Development. 

The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed to 

counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted in the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee supports continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter and understands 

the importance of improving the capabilities of the Cyber Mission 

Force. The committee therefore supports the request of U.S. Cyber 

Command to increase funding for the Cyber National Mission Force 

Capability Acceleration Plan. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.6 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F to accelerate the development of Cyber National Mission Force capabilities. 

ETERNALDARKNESS program development 

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 36250F 

Cyber Operations Technology Development. 

The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed to 

counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted in the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee supports continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter and understands 

the importance of improving the capabilities of the Cyber Mission 

92 

Force. The committee therefore supports the request of U.S. Cyber 

Command to increase funding to develop the 

ETERNALDARKNESS program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.1 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F for the 

ETERNALDARKNESS program. 

Joint Common Access Platform 

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 36250F 

Cyber Operations Technology Development. 

The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed to 

counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted in the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee supports continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter and understands 

the importance of improving the capabilities of the Cyber Mission 

Force. The committee therefore supports the request of U.S. Cyber 

Command to increase funding to develop the Joint Common Access 

Platform to be used by the Cyber Mission Force. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.5 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F for the Joint Common Access Platform. 

Protected Tactical Enterprise Service 

The budget request included $105.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 1206760F 

Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES). 

The committee is concerned that the prototype development of PTES, which constitutes $72.5 million of the overall request, has 

experienced unjustified growth. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206760F. 

Protected Tactical Service 

The budget request included $173.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 1206761F 

Protected Tactical Service (PTS). 

The committee is concerned that the rapid prototyping of PTS, 

which constitutes $111.8 million of the overall request, has experienced unjustified growth. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206761F. 

ERWn 

The budget request included $246.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64200F 

Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration. 

The committee acknowledges the importance of the mission of 

the Extended Range Weapons program; however, the committee 

understands that the Air Force is moving away from prototyping 

to an ongoing analysis of alternatives to better understand alternative technical solutions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $149.1 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64200F. 

93 

M–Code acceleration—system development & demonstration 

The budget request included $67.8 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64201F Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resiliency, Modifications, and 

Improvements. 

The committee understands the importance of the ability of the 

Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide resilient position, navigation, and timing capability to the Joint Force and acknowledges 

GPS Military-Code receiver development’s presence on the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64201F for system development 

and demonstration. 

Space Fence 

The budget request included no funding in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 1206426F 

Space Fence. 

The committee understands that the Air Force is still considering 

procurement of a second Space Fence site, which is an option in the 

Department of Defense’s Space Fence contract. Given the knowledge gained during the development of the first Space Fence site 

and the importance of developing an effective space situational 

awareness capability, the committee recommends that the Air 

Force evaluate construction of a second Space Fence site. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206426F for the completion of 

the second Space Fence design in order to fully understand its associated costs. 

Major T&E Investment 

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64759F 

Major Test and Evaluation Investment. 

The committee recognizes the important role that space test infrastructure plays in initially testing and evaluating the capability 

and resilience of Department of Defense space systems in a contested environment. The committee also notes the presence of 

foundational infrastructure elements used to test both terrestrial 

and space-based assets on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. The committee believes that this infrastructure should support testing of a comprehensive survey of systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in $36.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64759F for space test infrastructure. 

Utah test range instrumentation 

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64759F 

Major Test and Evaluation Investment. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has indicated that the capability to conduct test and evaluation over broad 

geographic areas must include net-centric and distributed test capability. Modernized test facility data systems must integrate modVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
94 

eling and simulation with operations, training, and flight tests to 

achieve the required level of complexity and realism. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in 

RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64759F for enhancements of Utah test 

range instrumentation for software-configurable test systems that 

address current and future Department of Defense data requirements. 

Investment in hypersonic research and infrastructure 

The budget request included $717.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 65807F 

Test and Evaluation Support. 

The committee notes that the development of hypersonic capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy and represents an area of intense technological competition between the 

United States, People’s Republic of China, and Russian Federation. 

The committee remains concerned that more attention needs to be 

focused on the expedient development and maturation of key 

hypersonic flight technologies. In addition to the need to improve 

ground-based test facilities such as wind tunnels, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) also needs to increase its flight test rate to expedite the maturation and fielding of hypersonic technologies. The 

combination of ground-based testing and flight testing is critical to 

fully maturing the fundamental technologies needed to field a 

hypersonic flight system. High-rate hypersonic flight test programs 

would help mature six critical technology areas: 

(1) Thermal protection systems and high temperature flight 

structures; 

(2) Seekers and sensors for hypersonic vehicles; 

(3) Advanced navigation, guidance, and control; 

(4) Communications and data links; 

(5) High speed aerodynamic characterization; and 

(6) Advanced avionics and vehicle communication systems 

for hypersonic vehicles. 

To address this concern, the committee believes that the DOD 

must increase investment in research and test infrastructure. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in 

RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65807F for the High-Speed Systems Test 

activity. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

report to the congressional defense committees, by June 1, 2020, on 

how the DOD plans to improve its test infrastructure and increase 

its flight test rate in fiscal year 2020 and beyond and the budget 

profile necessary to implement this plan. 

5G Military Operational Test Capability 

The budget request included $717.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 65807F 

Test and Evaluation Support. 

The committee notes the Defense Science Board’s recommendation to build a secure fifth generation (5G) wireless network on a 

Department of Defense (DOD) installation. The committee recognizes the revolutionary effect that 5G technology will have on the 

Department but is concerned that the DOD lacks the ability to test 

95 

and develop tactics to leverage 5G technology as well as to negate 

enemy use of this advanced capability. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65807F for the establishment of 

a 5G test network and associated infrastructure at the Nevada Test 

and Training Range. 

Advanced Battle Management System base architecture 

The budget request included $35.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 64003F 

Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). 

The committee notes the potential of secure fifth generation (5G) 

wireless networks for moving large amounts of data with very low 

latency. The Defense Science Board recommended building secure 

5G wireless networks on a base in order to understand the potential of these advanced networks. The committee recognizes the revolutionary effect that 5G technology will have on the Department 

of Defense and the potential for use for data transfer for the 

ABMS. However, the committee is concerned that the Department 

lacks the base infrastructure to test, develop, and leverage 5G technology. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64003F for the establishment of 

a 5G base network that could be used for ABMS at an Air Force 

installation in the continental U.S. 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System 

The budget request included $40.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 65018F Air 

Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System. 

The committee is concerned about poor agile implementation and 

infrequent capability delivery. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.6 million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 

65018F. 

HC–130 RDT&E 

The budget request included $17.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 65278F 

HC/MC–130 Recapitalization RDT&E. 

The committee supports the program and the modernization of 

current aircraft to meet the requirements of the National Defense 

Strategy. The committee understands that the program requirements have changed and that the current request is above need for 

this fiscal year. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.4 million 

in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65278F. 

Airborne Launch Control System Replacement 

The budget request included $129.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 11213F 

Minuteman Squadrons, which includes the Airborne Launch Control System–Replacement (ALCS–R) program. 

96 

The committee understands that the Air Force has chosen to consolidate the ALCS–R program into the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program and that this approach will reduce risk and may 

save $850 million across the life of the programs. The committee 

encourages the Air Force to ensure careful sustainment of the existing ALCS systems before they are replaced. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 11213F. 

Advanced data transport flight test 

The budget request included $0.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 31004F. 

The committee supports the development of capabilities to advance the ability of aircraft, sensors, and command and control assets to share information. The committee also understands that the 

development of this type of capability requires live flight testing. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $21.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 31004F to conduct live flight testing of the concept and associated capabilities. 

ISR automation 

The budget request included $19.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE 35022F Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Modernization and 

Automation Development. 

The committee supports the idea of modernizing the intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance enterprise and the continued use 

of prototyping to reduce technological risk. 

However, the committee is concerned with the fidelity of the current plan. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$19.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 35022F. 

Defense Wide 

Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

The budget request included $48.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

61110D8Z basic research initiatives. 

The committee notes the importance of basic research in meeting 

long-term national security needs and supports the Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCOR) efforts to expand the base of universities and states that support defense research and innovation missions. The committee notes that 

this program is attempting to engage faculty and students from 

DEPSCOR state universities through partnerships with defense research programs and defense laboratories. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $58.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

61110D8Z for DEPSCOR. 

97 

Submarine industrial base workforce development 

The budget request included $92.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

61120D8Z National Defense Education Program. 

The committee notes the current shortfall in Columbia-class technical workforce and supports increased submarine industrial base 

workforce training and education to make up for this shortfall. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $102.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

61120D8Z for submarine industrial base workforce development. 

Aerospace education and research 

The budget request included $30.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

61228D8Z basic research at historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions. 

The committee notes the importance of fundamental scientific 

knowledge and the pipeline of highly qualified technical talent related to long-term national security needs. The committee supports 

increased funding for aerospace education and research activities 

at Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions to promote the expansion of the future aerospace technical 

workforce, especially among U.S. citizens and to enhance research 

in areas including fatigue damage tolerance, experimental aerodynamics, and the performance of materials and components under 

extreme environmental conditions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million, for a total of $32.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

61228D8Z for aerospace education and research. 

Computer modeling of PFAS 

The budget request included $62.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

62251D8Z applied research for the advancement of science and 

technology priorities. 

The committee notes the potential for advanced computer modeling to improve the characterization and understanding of perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and supports an increase in 

applied research in computational biology research efforts to meet 

long-term national security needs in support of the National Defense Strategy. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 62251D8Z for government-university-industry partnerships in computer modeling of PFAS. 

Cyber Security Research 

The budget request included $15.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

62668D8Z cyber security research. 

The committee notes the importance of increased support for academic cyber institutes in meeting long-term national security needs 

in support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber research is critVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
98 

ical to developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to 

maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $25.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

62668D8Z. 

Artificial intelligence commercial solutions 

The budget request included $29.4 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for PE 0603342D8Z Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). 

The committee notes the importance of accelerating Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in support of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center’s (JAIC) National Mission Initiatives, including disaster response and predictive maintenance. The committee supports the use of commercial artificial intelligence (AI) solutions and 

urges the DIU to coordinate with the JAIC to identify problem sets 

facing the Department of Defense and to seek commercial AI solutions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million 

for PE 0603342D8Z to accelerate AI commercial solutions. 

Joint capability technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $107.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

63648D8Z joint capability technology demonstrations. 

The committee supports a program reduction in joint capability 

technology demonstrations due to a lack of coordination of activities 

across the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.5 million, for a total of $89.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

63648D8Z. 

Emerging capabilities technology development 

The budget request included $80.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

63699D8Z emerging capabilities technology development. 

The committee supports a program reduction in emerging capability technology development due to concerns about duplication of 

efforts across the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million, for a total of $70.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

63699D8Z. 

SERDP increase 

The budget request included $5.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $66.2 

million was for PE 63716D8Z Strategic Environmental Research 

and Development Program (SERDP). 

The committee notes that both SERDP and the Environmental 

Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) develop, 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 free and open 

competitions. The committee directs the Department to use the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
99 

creases in SERDP to address the following urgent concerns: (1) 

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 polyfluoroakyl substances; (2) Develop, demonstrate, validate, and field fluorine-free 

firefighting foam; (3) Develop, demonstrate, and validate long-term 

energy storage batteries tied to distributed energy assets; and (4) 

Develop other technologies deemed appropriate. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63716D8Z for SERDP. 

Program increase to support National Defense Strategy 

technologies 

The budget request included $175.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

63941D8Z test and evaluation science and technology. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense established 

the Test and Evaluation/Science and Technology Program in recognition of the development of advanced technology and transformational weapon systems, such as directed energy weapons and 

hypersonics, without corresponding advances in test technologies, 

such as means to measure directed energy effects or security testing of cloud computing environments. The committee further notes 

that in 2018 the People’s Republic of China announced the construction of a 265 meter long wind tunnel, which is to be complete 

by 2020, to simulate the acceleration environment from Mach 10 to 

Mach 25. China already has tunnels capable of simulating conditions between Mach 5 to 9. In contrast, the committee notes that, 

although the U.S. has hypersonic tunnels, most are small and designed for tests lasting less than a few seconds. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 

RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63941D8Z to fund development of 

test capabilities to support high-priority National Defense Strategy 

technology development efforts. 

ESTCP increase 

The budget request included $5.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $66.6 

million was for PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security Technology 

Certification Program (ESTCP). 

The committee notes that both the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and ESTCP develop, 

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 

free and open competitions. The committee directs the Department 

to use the increases in SERDP to address the following urgent concerns: (1) 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 

100 

polyfluoroakyl substances; (2) Develop, demonstrate, validate, and 

field fluorine-free firefighting foam; (3) Develop, demonstrate, and 

validate long-term energy storage batteries tied to distributed energy assets; and (4) Develop other technologies deemed appropriate. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63716D8Z for SERDP. 

MDA special programs 

The budget request included $377.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 63891C 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) special programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $125.0 million, for a 

total of $502.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63891C. 

Neutral particle beam 

The budget request included $303.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, in PE 64115C 

for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Technology Maturation Initiatives, of which $34.0 million was for a Neutral Particle Beam program. 

The committee notes that this program, intended for an on-orbit 

demonstration within 5 years, would constitute a space-based interceptor capability. The committee also notes that the 2019 Missile 

Defense Review (MDR) tasked the MDA with a study of development and fielding of a space-based intercept capability, to be delivered to the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy and Research 

and Engineering. According to the MDR, this study will, along with 

another study directed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 

boost-phase intercept capability, inform considerations regarding a 

space-based intercept layer for boost-phase defense. The committee 

believes that proceeding with any single technology program is premature before these studies are completed, the associated policy decisions are made concerning the operation of such a capability in 

space, and the relevant space-based sensor architecture is finalized. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.0 million in PE 64115C, RDT&E, Defense-wide, Technology Maturation 

Initiatives, for a total of $269.5 million. 

Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System 

The budget request contained $1.3 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

64250D8Z advanced innovative technologies of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), of which no funds were requested for the 

Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS). 

The committee notes that this system may be a promising pathway to provide more cost-effective point defense in theater and encourages the SCO to continue to prove out the capability in order 

to facilitate transition to one or more military departments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 64250D8Z for HGWS. 

101 

Strategic Capabilities Office 

The budget request included $1.3 billion in Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

64250D8Z Advanced Innovative Technologies. 

The committee notes that the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) 

was established to support rapid development, prototyping, and deployment of operational capabilities to meet emerging threats in 

the U.S. Indo-Pacific area of responsibility. Since then, the SCO 

has drifted from its original purpose and has seen significant budget growth not commensurate with its transition success and has 

undertaken projects with questionable technical merit and operational utility. The committee recommends reductions in the following projects, LiTE Saber, Quiet Riot, and StormSystem. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 64250D8Z. 

Trusted and assured microeletronics 

The budget request included $542.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

64294D8Z trusted and assured microelectronics. 

The committee notes the importance of trusted and assured 

microelectronics research for many applications, including fifthgeneration wireless networking microelectronics. The committee believes that it is important to develop technologies that could help 

in supply chain risk management. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $547.4 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

64294D8Z. 

Rapid prototyping program 

The budget request included $101.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

64331D8Z rapid prototyping program. 

The committee notes that the Services and Defense Agencies are 

aggressively investing in prototyping activities, through programs 

using ‘‘Section 804’’ acquisition authorities, rapid capability offices, 

and shifting science and technology programs toward prototyping 

and away from innovation activities. The committee further notes 

that the Rapid Prototyping Fund, previously authorized by the 

Congress, is also funding prototyping activities. Finally, the committee notes that there is no central coordinating body in the Department of Defense to oversee its many prototyping efforts and ensure that they are focused on key issues, such as informing requirements development and assessing the technical feasibility of proposed technological approaches. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million, for a total of $51.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

64331D8Z. 

Space Development Agency missile defense programs 

The budget request included $85.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, in PE 

1206410SDA, for Space Development Agency (SDA) Space Technology Development and Prototyping, of which $15.0 million was 

102 

for a Space-Based Interceptor Study and $15.0 million was for a 

Space-Based Discrimination Study. 

The committee notes that the SDA was unable to provide further 

details on these two efforts at the time of the budget release. The 

committee further notes that elements of both studies appear to be 

duplicative of ongoing efforts within the Missile Defense Agency. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 1206410SDA, RDT&E, Defense-wide, Space Technology 

Development and Prototyping, for a total of $55.0 million. 

Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor 

The budget request included $27.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

1206895C Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Space Programs of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), of which no funding 

was requested for a space-based sensor layer for missile defense 

purposes. 

The committee is deeply concerned about the growing threat 

posed by hypersonic glide and cruise missiles, which challenge existing sensor capabilities for both homeland and theater missile defenses. Integral to any defense against this threat is the ability to 

track low-flying or maneuverable missiles and glide vehicles, a mission that can only be performed effectively from space. The committee also notes that the space-based sensor technology would be 

required before a space-based intercept layer-which was included in 

the budget request-could be deployed. 

The committee notes that, after several years of consistent testimony from senior Department of Defense officials regarding the importance of space-based sensors for a missile defense capability, the 

Congress has strongly supported MDA’s space-based sensor program. Both the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) and the Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–245) increased funding for the Space Sensor Layer program 

from $0.0 to $73.0 million. 

Finally, the committee notes that this program, now called the 

Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor, was included in 

the unfunded requirements lists of the MDA Director and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $108.0 

million, for a total of $135.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for 

PE 1206895C. 

Joint Mission Environment Test Capability 

The budget request included $83.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

65100D8Z Joint Mission Environment Test Capability. 

The committee notes the importance of cyber range development 

to meet future national security needs. The committee believes that 

cyber test range capabilities will be critical in training our 

warfighters to effectively counter the threats posed by our adversaries as specified in the National Defense Strategy. 

103 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million, for a total of $89.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

65100D8Z. 

Technical Studies, Support, and Analysis 

The budget request included $18.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

65104D8Z for technical studies and analyses. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in 

RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 65104D8Z. 

Systems engineering 

The budget request included $37.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

65142D8Z systems engineering. 

The committee supports a program reduction in systems engineering due to the lack of coordination of efforts across the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, 

for a total of $32.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 

65142D8Z for management support. 

Defense Digital Service development support 

The budget request included $1.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

66589D8W Defense Digital Service (DDS) Development Support. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Defense Digital 

Service in helping the Department of Defense to build, buy, and deploy technology and digital services. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 66589D8W for additional development support activities. 

Advanced manufacturing systems 

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

67210D8Z Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Support. 

The committee notes that the university research community has 

contributed significantly to the development of new defense capabilities, including in advanced manufacturing. The committee believes that the U.S. academic research enterprise should play a bigger role in promoting innovation in the defense industrial base. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z for interdisciplinary centers for research on advanced manufacturing. 

Composite manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support. 

The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of Defense report titled ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of 

the United States’’’ stressed the ‘‘imperative that producers and 

104 

supply chains of materials deemed essential to U.S. defense and civilian demand are robust, resilient, competitive, and responsive to 

support current and long-term economic security, current military 

operations, future wartime mobilization, and unanticipated surge 

demand.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund the development of composite manufacturing technologies. 

Printed circuit boards 

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support. 

The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of Defense report titled ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of 

the United States’’’ stated, ‘‘90% of worldwide printed circuit board 

production is in Asia, over half of which occurring in China; and 

the U.S. printed circuit board sub-sector is aging, constricting, and 

failing to maintain the state of the art for rigid and rigid-flex printed circuit board production capability.’’ Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in RDT&E, Defense wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund printed circuit board manufacturing. 

Rare earths materials research 

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support. 

The committee notes the importance of supporting mitigations 

for continuous and growing industrial base shortfalls and 

vulnerabilities, including those identified in the September 2018 

Department of Defense report titled ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening 

the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain 

Resiliency of the United States.’’ This report specifically recommended expanding direct investment in the lower tier of the industrial base through the Department’s Industrial Base Analysis 

and Sustainment program to address critical bottlenecks, support 

fragile suppliers, and mitigate single points-of-failure. It further 

noted that ‘‘China’s domination of the rare earth element market 

illustrates the potentially dangerous interaction between Chinese 

economic aggression guided by its strategic industrial policies and 

vulnerabilities and gaps in America’s manufacturing and defense 

industrial base.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund development of capability to produce rare earth elements from coal ash. 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $289.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 33140G 

Information Systems Security Program. 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

105 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9 million 

in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 33140G for the Sharkseer program. 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $42.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 33140K 

Information Systems Security Program. 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million 

in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 33140K for the Sharkseer program. 

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities 

The budget request included $2.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

0305128V Security and Investigative Activities. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in 

RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 0305128V for the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency to carry out a set of activities relating to facilitating access by the Agency to local criminal records 

historical data. 

Future Vertical Lift 

The budget request included $245.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

1160403BB aviation systems, of which $1.2 million is for the development and integration of special operations-unique equities and 

requirements into a multi-service future vertical lift (FVL) capability set 3 (CS3) aircraft. 

The committee understands that U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is working with the Army to identify specific special operations-unique requirements early in the design phase of 

the FVL CS3 in order to reduce duplication of design, engineering, 

and post-production costs. The committee notes that the SOCOM 

Program Executive Officer-Rotary Wing and the Army Program 

Manager-FVL estimate that there could be approximately $188 

million in RDT&E savings resulting from this co-development approach as compared to making post-production modifications to the 

aircraft. 

The committee also understands that the Army’s decision to accelerate FVL CS3 development has resulted in a shortfall in 

SOCOM’s related development efforts, an identified high priority 

unfunded requirement for the command. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an additional $8.8 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, 

106 

for PE 1160403BB, for the development and integration of special 

operations-unique equities and requirements into a multi-service 

FVL CS3 aircraft. 

Next Generation Information Communications Technology 

(5G) 

The budget request included no funding in Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE 

64011D8Z Next Generation Information Communications Technology. 

The committee believes that fifth-generation wireless networks 

and associated technologies will be a foundation for future economic growth, will have an important nexus with national security, 

and should be of high interest to the Department of Defense. The 

committee is aware that, in future wireless networks, the ability to 

use dynamic spectrum sharing technologies will be critical to more 

efficient spectrum use. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million, for a 

total of $25.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 64011D8Z 

in support of a Department of Defense spectrum sharing program. 

Transfer from OCO to Base 

The budget request included $102.6 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in base funding. The committee notes that the President’s budget request included $97.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee believes that OCO for Base funding should be transferred 

into the base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $748.0 

million to RDT&E base funding. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acquisition roadmaps for certain Navy unmanned systems 

The committee notes that the Navy’s fiscal year 2020 future 

years defense program (FYDP) includes a substantial increase in 

funding for various unmanned systems, including unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned underwater vessels (UUVs). 

The committee further notes that Navy leaders envision some of 

these systems’ operating autonomously with the ability to employ 

weapons. 

While recognizing the need for prototypes to reduce acquisition 

risk, the committee is concerned that the acquisition strategies for 

the Large USV, Medium USV, Orca UUV, and Snakehead UUV 

could lead to procurement of an excessive number of systems before 

the Navy is able to determine if the USVs and UUVs meet operational needs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than November 1, 2019, that provides acquisition roadmaps for the 

Large USV, Medium USV, Orca UUV, and Snakehead UUV. Each 

roadmap shall: (1) Identify the applicable requirements document 

(e.g., Top Level Requirements); (2) Describe the threshold and obVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
107 

jective values for each characteristic, key performance parameter 

(KPP), or other measure in the applicable requirements document; 

(3) Identify increments of vessels in each program; (4) For each 

such increment, identify specific entrance and exit criteria that 

build toward the specified requirements (e.g., characteristic, KPP, 

or other measure), including demonstrated hardware and software 

functionality; (5) Identify the quantity of vessels needed in each increment to perform the required testing or meet operational needs; 

(6) Describe the concept of operations for each increment; (7) Identify the key pieces of hardware and software needed for each increment, including communications security material, off-board lineof-sight and satellite communications, and military datalinks; (8) 

Describe the extent to which each increment of vessels will be 

equipped with weapons, enumerate such weapons, and describe the 

associated target detect-to-engage sequence of events for each such 

weapon; (9) Provide the subsystem-level prototyping plan for each 

increment, including for each such effort the planned cost, schedule, and performance; and (10) Provide the acquisition plan for 

each increment, including the planned cost, schedule, and performance. 

Advance power electronics 

The committee supports the Navy’s efforts in developing advanced power electronics, including silicon carbide power modules, 

which could reduce the size and weight of power conversion modules and other electronic systems needed to power advanced sensors and weapon systems. The committee recognizes that available 

space and power density will continue to be a concern when fielding naval systems on legacy Navy ships. 

The committee encourages the Navy to continue its efforts to develop silicon carbide power modules to support planned deployment 

of high-power, mission critical systems on Navy platforms. 

Army Futures Command research budget realignments 

The committee understands that the Army has reorganized certain research offices, laboratories, and engineering centers within 

the Combat Capability Development Command (CCDC), a subordinate command of Army Futures Command. The committee is 

aware that, as part of this reorganization, certain program elements for basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development were realigned from research, development, 

and engineering centers to Army Futures Command headquarters. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to enter into an 

agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate 

these changes and their impact on the Army’s ability to efficiently 

and effectively develop and deploy needed capabilities and new 

technologies in the near, mid, and far terms. The review should 

also include recommendations for policy and organizational options 

that would better optimize the Army research enterprise to support 

Army missions in the near, mid, and far terms. The committee directs that this study be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2021. 

108 

Artificial intelligence and sensor fusion for force protection 

The committee acknowledges the success of ongoing rapid fielding of commercially-available technologies that use artificial intelligence and sensor fusion to deliver enhanced force protection for 

Department of Defense (DOD) personnel and installations. The 

committee notes that recent advances in commercially available 

technology, including artificial intelligence, computer vision, and 

sensor technology, have made it possible to develop, manufacture, 

and deploy reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition 

technologies that are far more effective, more efficient, and lower 

cost than legacy systems. The committee is aware that artificial intelligence can significantly improve situational awareness and security for DOD personnel through faster and better processing and 

exploitation of sensor data, recognition and classification of potential threats, and dissemination of that information to human operators for the purposes of enhanced self-defense. 

The committee believes that artificial-intelligence- and sensor-fusion-based technologies for personnel security and base defense will 

reduce manpower and improve operators’ ability to detect, classify, 

and respond to threats. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

DOD to review the application of artificial intelligence that could 

improve the safety of DOD personnel and installations and 

prioritize such efforts as appropriate. 

Artificial intelligence for Army air and missile defense 

The committee supports the Army’s efforts to conduct operationally realistic assessments of Army Air and Missile Defense (AMD) 

performance, identify system vulnerabilities, and develop mitigations against threats across the cyber and electromagnetic spectrum. The committee remains concerned about any potential 

vulnerabilities in AMD weapon systems and understands the importance of conducting periodic assessments of these weapon systems. The committee is also aware that the Army is developing 

tools, including modeling and simulation and virtual models of critical hardware and software to allow for testing in a lab environment. The committee encourages the Army to look at methods for 

incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning into assessments of AMD weapon systems to help identify and mitigate 

current and future threats. 

Back-packable Communications Intelligence System 

The committee is aware of expressed support by United States 

Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) for continued development of the Back-packable Communications Intelligence System 

(BPCS), an ultra-capable, low size, weight, and power, high-frequency direction finding system currently managed by the U.S. 

Army. The committee understands that BPCS performance was 

demonstrated at the Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (SOF AT&L) Technical Experiment 18–3 and 

encourages USASOC to continue working in close coordination with 

SOF AT&L and the Army to advance BPCS development and testing. 

109 

Battlefield situational awareness 

The committee is aware that, on a modern battlefield, it is expected that friendly forces will be in close proximity to the enemy 

and will require integrated joint fires in order to achieve the effects 

demanded by the Joint Force Commander. The committee believes 

that the Department of Defense has been slow to develop and field 

capabilities to provide battlefield situational awareness of enemy 

and friendly forces. The committee is also aware of current technical solutions that could provide the required identification of 

friend and foe in environments such as battlefield interdiction, 

close combat attack, or close air support. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the service chiefs, to provide 

a briefing, no later than March 30, 2020, on a technical solution 

and an acquisition strategy that would provide the Joint Force with 

continuous battlefield situational awareness to identify friendly 

and enemy personnel in both highly contested and permissive environments. 

Briefing on detection of uncharted wires and obstacles to 

prevent aviation incidents 

Uncharted wires and obstacles pose a threat to rotary wing and 

tiltrotor aircraft particularly in degraded visual environments. This 

problem can be exacerbated for special operations and combat 

search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft that often operate in non-permissive conditions. 

The committee understands that multiple systems that may increase visibility for aircrews in order to avoid obstacles in both low 

altitude flying and landing environments are currently in development. However, the committee is concerned that the Department of 

Defense has not taken demonstrable steps toward fielding such 

technology. Furthermore, the development and fielding of such a 

capability should be fully coordinated across the Services to expeditiously field this technology to aircrews. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Chief of 

Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of 

Naval Operations, the Commandant of the United States Marine 

Corps, and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to 

provide a briefing to the committee no later than October 1, 2019, 

on efforts to identify, develop, and procure capabilities for rotary 

wing and tiltrotor aircraft to detect and avoid uncharted wires and 

obstacles. The briefing shall include an evaluation of current commercially available systems as well as an estimate of the funding 

required to, if necessary, develop and acquire such a system for rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft. 

Demonstration pilots to demonstrate cost savings and enhanced performance of anti-corrosion nanotechnologies 

The committee is aware of new advances in nanotechnology being 

used in the commercial sector, particularly in the aviation and energy industries, that reduce corrosion, improve performance, and 

reduce costs. The committee is concerned that, although the fundamental science was developed in part by the Department of DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
110 

fense, the Department has failed to even try these new materials 

that could significantly reduce the military’s operating costs while 

improving readiness and performance. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering to brief the committee, no 

later than February 1, 2020, on the economic, performance, and 

readiness impacts regarding the potential for testing and applying 

these technologies in various operating assets, like pipelines, heat 

exchangers, fuel storage tanks, water lines, aircraft, and others 

deemed appropriate by the Department. 

Department of Defense artificial intelligence investment inventory 

The committee believes that it is important that the Department 

of Defense (DOD) has accurate insight as to the nature and extent 

of investments made in artificial intelligence (AI). The committee 

is aware that one impediment to such insight is that AI Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) is spread throughout 

generally titled program elements (PEs) and incorporated into 

funding for larger systems with AI components or even extends beyond RDT&E into Operation and Maintenance and Procurement. 

The committee therefore directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) to brief the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2019, on the total array of AI investments, to include 

PEs, line numbers, and funding amounts with sufficient detail and 

description of those investments. The committee also expects the 

Under Secretary to include the methodology for tracking AI investments in future budget requests. Further, the committee recommends that the Department consider summarizing these AI investments in the annual information technology budget exhibit. 

Flame resistant military uniforms with multi-spectral sensor protection 

The committee notes that infrared and multi-spectral sensor detection is an emerging threat to members of the Armed Forces. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are under an ever increasing 

threat of long-range detection by these sensors in use by hostile 

near-peer as well as non-state actors. Given recent technical developments in sensor technologies and sensor mitigation, the committee feels that it is in the best interest of the Services to explore 

multi-spectral sensor mitigation technologies and to incorporate 

them into the current suite of flame resistant (FR) uniforms presently in use by the Services. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in 

coordination with the Secretaries of the Navy and the Air Force, 

to conduct a feasibility study on incorporating these mitigation 

technologies into FR uniforms and to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on this study by December 1, 2019. 

High powered microwave test range asset 

The committee supports the transitioning of new and gamechanging directed energy technologies to the warfighter. An enduring testing and evaluation capability for high powered microwaves 

111 

(HPM) would help the Services develop the doctrine and concepts 

of operation that will bring these technologies to operational use. 

Currently, an enduring frequency agile and tunable HPM asset is 

not available at Major Range and Test Facility Bases for evolving 

doctrine and HPM Directed Energy Concept of Operations. The 

committee supports the Air Force’s development of such an asset 

at the Nation’s test ranges. 

Historically black colleges and universities support for minority women in science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics fields 

The committee acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) to increase the participation of women and 

other underserved populations in science, technology, engineering 

and mathematics-related (STEM) areas of research. The committee 

urges the DOD to continue funding for center of excellence efforts 

at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that support 

training and education of minority women in STEM fields of interest to the military, particularly through research funding, fellowships, and internships and cooperative work experiences at defense 

laboratories. The committee recommends that the Department of 

Defense consider increasing investments in these kinds of activities 

in future budgets to support administration initiatives on HBCUs. 

Hostile fire detection technology 

The committee is aware of advancements in the development of 

hostile fire detection technology and the importance of these capabilities in providing deployed forces with the ability to quickly detect, locate, and discriminate hostile fire and related threats. The 

committee believes that efforts to reduce the size, weight, power requirements, and cost for hostile fire detection technologies could 

provide important benefits to battlefield effectiveness and survivability of our forces. The committee therefore directs the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to provide 

to the committee a briefing not later than October 1, 2019, on 

SOCOM’s current requirements for hostile fire detection and an assessment of available technologies that may fulfill these requirements. 

Human factors modeling and simulation 

The committee notes that section 227 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) required the Secretary of Defense to develop and provide 

for the execution of human factors modeling and simulation activities with the purpose of accelerating research and development 

that enhances capabilities for human performance, human-systems 

integration, and training for the warfighter. 

The committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing on the 

status of this requirement and activities taken to fulfill the requirement no later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. The briefing shall include information on the extent of the activities that are being carried out, the effects of these activities 

with respect to their purpose, activity participants, locations where 

112 

activities are being carried out, and the plan to sustain these activities in the future. 

Hypersonic development 

The committee understands that developing hypersonic technology is a high priority modernization effort for the Department 

of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes that, in an effort to 

accelerate the development of hypersonics and to coordinate simultaneous development efforts across the DOD, the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Research and Engineering signed a memorandum of 

agreement with the Services, with each contributing to and collaborating on the land-, sea-, and air-based prototyping of hypersonic 

technology. 

The committee notes that, for over 30 years, Sandia National 

Laboratories (SNL) has made significant contributions to the prototyping and testing of hypersonic vehicles. SNL houses experienced 

scientists and engineers in the development of this technology, who 

utilize SNL’s hypersonic wind tunnel and advanced laser diagnostic 

technology. Over 7 years ago, Sandia conducted a successful flight 

test of a hypersonic concept for the U.S. Army Space and Missile 

Defense Command. This test provided SNL with significant additional data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range 

performance for long-range atmospheric flight with an emphasis on 

aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal protection technologies. 

SNL is now integrating artificial intelligence into the designing 

and planning stages, which may significantly expedite the development and design process. 

The committee believes that the technical expertise at SNL and 

the laboratory has been and will continue to be instrumental to the 

development and eventual production of hypersonics. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Department to utilize the technical and 

scientific expertise at labs, including SNL, necessary for the development of prototypes and to assist commercial industry in manufacturing. 

Importance and use of United States Active Ionospheric Research Facilities 

The committee recognizes the unique importance of U.S. active 

ionospheric research facilities, also known as ‘‘ionospheric heaters.’’ 

These facilities transmit high frequency (HF) radio waves and play 

a crucial role in the research of ionospheric effects on national security systems. The research possible at these facilities is useful to 

national security in the realms of domain awareness, radar, atmospheric effects on space systems, and over-the-horizon communications. The committee recognizes that, while there are four ionospheric research facilities in the world, two are in the United 

States, including the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Gakona, Alaska, and the HF heater at the Arecibo Observatory (AO) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Both of these centers are available to support scientific investigations and national 

security programs for the Department of Defense, Department of 

Energy, and the National Science Foundation. 

113 

The committee is aware that the HAARP has supported investigations of ionospheric effects on high latitude communications 

and navigation capabilities and the remediation of high energy 

‘‘killer’’ electrons in the magnetosphere as a result of an extreme 

solar event or a high-altitude nuclear detonation. The HAARP facility supports strategic applications for over-the-horizon radar, global 

communication, and diagnostics for satellite communication. The 

committee is aware that the AO facility supports investigations of 

ionospheric effects at mid- and- low latitudes with applications including radio communications and radar detection. These experimental sites provide insights and diagnostics for ionospheric effects 

that are extremely challenging to obtain. 

The committee encourages continued use of these facilities and 

believes that these facilities can be used, when appropriate, to support the national security space program. 

Interdisciplinary expeditionary cybersecurity research 

The committee is encouraged by current research efforts to understand expeditionary cyber challenges. The committee understands the challenge of operating within a complex and evolving 

cyber and physical environment where warfighters are in close 

proximity and contact with adversaries and believes that this is simultaneously a growing threat and opportunity. The committee believes that an interdisciplinary approach to developing new capabilities for cyber systems while including consideration of the role 

of human behavior in the tactical cyber environment is critical. The 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to 

conduct multidisciplinary research in the areas of: dynamic cyber 

defense; tactical cyberspace operations and signals intelligence; 

sensing; and computation and communications. 

Light attack experiment 

The committee supports the increase of combat capability and 

readiness at a reduced cost and the development of advanced capabilities for close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction. The committee also supports the Department of Defense’s intent to lower the cost of countering violent extremism in accordance 

with the National Security Strategy. However, the committee is 

concerned that the pace of research and prototyping in this area 

has not kept up with the threat or the current capability available 

to the Department. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to deliver a briefing, no later than March 30, 2020, to the congressional defense committees on the acceleration of the light attack experiment using existing aircraft and any other aircraft that the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force deems appropriate and capable of 

reaching initial operating capability by 2023. 

Multifunction capability to provide communications in contested environments 

The committee is concerned about the ability of the Department 

of Defense to maintain its advantage in full spectrum operations in 

the future. Recent conflicts have highlighted our adversaries’ inVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
114 

creasing abilities to geolocate, jam, and intercept electronic communications, putting at risk the U.S. military’s ability to communicate 

and conduct effective command and control in contested environments. 

To better prepare for future combat operations against a nearpeer adversary, the committee believes that the DOD needs to expedite testing of multi-domain capabilities and systems that provide distributed, shared, full spectrum situational awareness and 

spectrum maneuver. This testing should include cognitive machine 

learning or artificial intelligence applications to assess new and unknown electronic signals in real-time. Such testing would also demonstrate advanced technologies, such as modern waveforms that 

are designed to be low-probability-of-intercept, low-probability-ofdetection, and ultra-wideband radio frequency converged apertures 

that permit the U.S. to maintain spectrum dominance. These systems should also enable secure communications across networks 

with different security levels and between both legacy and advanced systems. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with a briefing, no later 

than March 1, 2020, on the plan for the conduct of live testing of 

technologies and capabilities designed to permit secure full spectrum operations in the fiscal years 2020–2021 timeframe. 

Navy laser integration plans 

The committee is greatly encouraged by the Navy’s rapid demonstration of laser weapon systems on surface ships. In 2014, the 

Navy deployed a 30 kW Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on USS 

Ponce, which will be followed by a 150 kW LaWS on USS Portland 

(LPD–27), planned for 2019. The committee understands that the 

improvements in power and beam quality make the 150 kW LaWS 

nearly a 100-fold improvement in lethality. 

The committee is also encouraged by the Navy’s plans to integrate the 60 kW High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler 

with Surveillance (HELIOS) program into Arleigh Burke-class destroyers beginning in 2021. 

If the HELIOS effort succeeds, the committee believes there may 

be additional opportunities to integrate High Energy Laser (HEL) 

systems on large capital ships, including aircraft carriers and large 

amphibious ships, to increase the defensive capabilities and 

lethality of our carrier strike groups and expeditionary forces. 

If the Navy has continued positive results at increased radiated 

power, there may also be broader applications of laser weapons for 

providing capability for fleet air defense from more Navy vessels. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, not 

later than October 1, 2019, describing the path forward for shipboard integration of HEL systems and the risk reduction plan to 

achieve improved technology and manufacturing readiness levels 

for such higher power systems. The committee also directs the Secretary to provide briefings on the progress of laser systems development and testing every 6 months through fiscal year 2021. 

115 

Production-ready sources for hypersonic materials 

Hypersonic systems require high performance, heat resistant materials to survive demanding flight regimes. For mission critical 

structures such as radomes and apertures, currently available materials and manufacturing infrastructure cannot meet anticipated 

requirements for hypersonic systems. The committee notes that the 

September 2018 Report of the Interagency Task Force in fulfillment of Executive Order 13806 recommends that the Department 

of Defense expand direct investment in the lower tier of the industrial base through Title III of the Defense Production Act (Public 

Law 81–774), Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology, 

and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment programs to address critical bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and mitigate 

single points-of-failure. The committee strongly agrees with this 

recommendation and directs the Department to use the respective 

authorities and funding within these programs to accelerate material qualification and establishment of production ready sources for 

critical materials and components to support hypersonic systems. 

Requirement for briefing on Advanced Battle Management 

System acquisition strategy 

The committee is concerned with the progress of the Advanced 

Battle Management System (ABMS). The Air Force has taken a 

significant amount of time to hire what they refer to as an architect to analyze the problem and produce a solution that would be 

fielded at Robins Air Force Base. The committee understands that 

the problem is currently well-defined to include potential sensor 

and communication requirements for a disaggregated solution to 

battle management. However, the committee remains concerned 

that the ABMS comprises a number of programs and, as a result, 

may cross multiple program elements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to biannually provide briefings to the congressional defense committees on the progress of the ABMS acquisition. The first briefing 

shall be provided no later than January 1, 2020, and the subsequent briefings shall be provided once every 6 months until system 

is fielded. 

These briefings shall include: (1) the ABMS acquisition strategy; 

(2) Progress made in meeting that strategy; (3) An unclassified 

plan that lays out a personnel transition strategy in order to develop the initial cadre for the ABMS from the current workforce, 

including active duty, Reserve, Air National Guard, and civilians, 

at Robins Air Force Base; and (4) The plan to fill the capability gap 

that could emerge post-JSTARS and pre-ABMS. 

Use of commercial cloud services to support high performance computing needs 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

many needs for high performance computing systems to support 

weapons design and testing, weather forecasting, scientific research, data analysis, and other missions. The committee further 

notes that commercial cloud computing services may provide a 

novel, efficient, and lower cost method for obtaining high performance computing capabilities. The committee directs the Under SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
116 

retary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) and 

the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to jointly develop a report analyzing the potential use of cloud computing capabilities, including 

commercial services, to help support the high performance computing needs of the DOD. The committee directs that the report be 

delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than 

January 1, 2021. 

(117) 

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 

Use of operational energy cost savings of Department of Defense (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2912 of title 10, United States Code, to require that operational energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 

be used for the implementation of additional operational energy 

cost saving methods. 

Use of proceeds from sales of electrical energy generated 

from geothermal resources (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2916(b) of title 10, United States Code, to provide the Department of Defense more flexibility when using geothermal revenue. 

Energy resilience programs and activities (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical corrections to the Annual Energy Management and Resilience 

Report, would require a report on funding levels for certain energy 

program offices, and would establish targets for reduction in water 

use. 

Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation 

program (sec. 314) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD), that would amend chapter 160 of title 

10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to mitigate the environmental impacts of DOD activities on Native American Indian lands. 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with the Twin Cities Army 

Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 315) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for remedial actions performed at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP). The committee understands that this auVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
118 

thority will be used to satisfy the interagency agreement for the 

TCAPP. 

Prohibition on use of perfluoroalkyl substances and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances for land-based applications 

of firefighting foam (sec. 316) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from procuring firefighting foam that contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances after October 1, 

2022. 

Transfer authority for funding of study and assessment on 

health implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water by Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (sec. 317) 

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 extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services for the study and assessment of the health implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 

Cooperative agreements with States to address contamination by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(sec. 318) 

The committee recommends a provision that would encourage the 

Secretary of Defense to work expeditiously to finalize a cooperative 

agreement upon request from the governor of a State if there is 

suspected contamination from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances. If an agreement is not finalized or amended within 1 

year, the Secretary of Defense is required to submit a report to the 

appropriate congressional committees. 

Modification of Department of Defense environmental restoration authorities to include Federal Government facilities used by National Guard (sec. 319) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish environmental restoration accounts for the Army National Guard and 

the Air National Guard. 

Budgeting of Department of Defense relating to extreme 

weather (sec. 320) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to include a dedicated budget line item for adaptation to and mitigation of effects of extreme weather on military 

networks, systems, installations, facilities, and other assets and capabilities of the Department of Defense in the annual budget submission of the President. 

Pilot program for availability of working-capital funds for 

increased combat capability through energy optimization (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense and the military departments to use the working 

119 

capital fund established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 

States Code, to conduct a pilot program for energy optimization initiatives. Further, this provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees on the use of the authority during the preceding fiscal year. 

The annual report would be required to be submitted not later than 

60 days after the President’s budget is submitted to the Congress. 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy intensity at military 

installations (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to 

submit a report on efforts to achieve cost savings at military installations with high energy intensity to the congressional defense 

committees not later than September 1, 2020. 

Technical and grammatical corrections and repeal of obsolete provisions relating to energy (sec. 323) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide technical corrections to title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment 

Requirement for memoranda of understanding between the 

Air Force and the Navy regarding depot maintenance 

(sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

joint memorandum of understanding in such cases where one military service would provide depot maintenance for an air platform 

of another military service. The memorandum would address the 

requirements and oversight responsibilities for administration, supply, and maintenance and would be executed by officials of both 

services in a grade of O–7 or higher with responsibilities for administration, supply, and maintenance. 

The committee wants to ensure that the different maintenance 

practices required by the Navy and the Air Force are well-understood by both services. 

Modification to limitation on length of overseas forward deployment of naval vessels (sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 323 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) relating to the limitation on length of overseas forward deployment of naval vessels. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Report on modernization of Joint Pacific Alaska Range 

Complex (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report on the long-term modernization of the Joint 

Pacific Alaska Range Complex. 

120 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Strategy to improve infrastructure of certain depots of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to deliver a comprehensive strategy to the 

congressional defense committees, no later than October 1, 2020, 

for improving the depot infrastructure of the military departments 

with the objective of ensuring that the depots have the capacity 

and capability to support the readiness and material availability 

goals of current and future weapon systems of the Department of 

Defense. The provision would require that the strategy include a 

review of the current conditions and performance of each depot, a 

business-case analysis comparing the minimum investment necessary required under section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, 

with the actual investment needed to execute the planned mission 

and a plan to improve the conditions and performance utilizing this 

data. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review and submit to the congressional defense 

committees, no later than January 1, 2021, a report on the extent 

to which the submitted strategy meets the requirements set forth. 

The committee notes that, although section 2476e of title 10, 

United States Code, established minimum investment requirements for the military departments’ depots, the committee is aware 

that recent reporting by the Comptroller General indicates that the 

condition of depot facilities is poor and the age of depot equipment 

is often past its expected useful life. The intent of section 2476e 

was to require a minimum level of investment to ensure that the 

military depots would receive adequate investment in facilities, 

equipment, and processes. The committee is concerned, however, 

that this requirement may not be adequate to maintain the organic 

industrial base infrastructure over its useful life. 

Limitation on use of funds regarding the basing of KC–46A 

aircraft outside the continental United States (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit Air 

Force funds until the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the 

Congress a report on the projected plan and timeline for strategic 

basing of the KC–46A aircraft outside the continental United 

States. 

Prevention of encroachment on military training routes and 

military operations areas (sec. 353) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require 

projects to file 1 year before construction if they are proposed within wide area surveillance over-the-horizon radar. Additionally, the 

provision allows the governor of a State to recommend geographical 

areas of concern to the Secretary of Defense. 

Expansion and enhancement of authorities on transfer and 

adoption of military animals (sec. 354) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to require veterinary 

121 

screening and care for military working dogs prior to retirement or 

transfer to law enforcement agencies. The provision would also, as 

requested by the Department of Defense, extend transfer and adoption authorities to Department-owned mules and donkeys, in order 

to provide consistency for use of the word ‘‘transfer’’ throughout 

this section of law. 

Limitation on contracting relating to Defense Personal 

Property Program (sec. 355) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from entering into or awarding any contract 

for the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3) any sooner than 

60 days after the Comptroller General of the United States delivers 

a report to Congress, previously directed, on DP3. The provision 

would allow the Secretary of Defense to review and evaluate any 

solicited or unsolicited proposal intended to improve DP3. 

The committee notes the concerns and frustration of 

servicemembers across the Department of Defense with the delivery of services under the current DP3 structure. The committee understands that U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) has 

efforts underway to improve servicemember experiences for the 

2019 and 2020 peak moving seasons and develop a long-term solution for managing the DP3 system through a single contractor. 

While the committee is encouraged by TRANSCOM’s desire to improve the program’s delivery of services to servicemembers, the 

committee believes that both TRANSCOM and the Congress need 

additional information before making a determination on the best 

path forward. 

Prohibition on subjective upgrades by commanders of unit 

ratings in monthly readiness reporting on military units 

(sec. 356) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

commander of a military unit who is responsible for monthly reporting of readiness from making any subjective upgrade of the 

overall rating of the unit. The provision would also include a waiver authority if the first flag or general officer above the reporting 

unit in the chain of command approves of the upgrade. Finally, the 

provision would require that any such waiver, and subsequent upgrades, be included in the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress. 

The committee notes that too often certain military services have 

abused the flexible authority of subjective upgrades, with the Department of Defense and the Congress lacking a truly accurate portrayal of unit readiness as a result. 

Extension of temporary installation reutilization authority 

for arsenals, depots, and plants (sec. 357) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 345(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 10 U.S.C. 2667 note) by striking 

‘‘September 30, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2025.’’ 

The committee notes that the permissive authority that would be 

extended under this provision allows to the Secretary of the Army 

to authorize leases and contracts for up to 25 years under section 

122 

2667 of title 10, United States Code, if the Secretary determines 

that a lease or contract will promote the national defense by maintaining the viability of an arsenal, depot, plant, or military installation on which such facility is located. The committee further notes 

that any lease is subject to a 90-day hold period for the purposes 

of review by the Army real property manager. 

Clarification of food ingredient requirements for food or 

beverages provided by the Department of Defense (sec. 

358) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to publish a notice of proposed action before 

making any final rule, statement, or determination on the limitation or prohibition of a food or beverage ingredient provided by the 

Department of Defense (DOD). 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are engaging with private industry 

regarding decisions made that impact food supply chains. In order 

to assess the impact of these decisions on farms, vendors, suppliers, 

and supply chain activities, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to evaluate the current DOD/DLA 

joint subsistence policy board, DOD menu standards, and DLA’s 

process map designed to ensure industry engagement. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing 

to the committee on the preliminary observations of this review, 

not later than February 1, 2020, and to submit a report on a date 

agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Technical correction to deadline for transition to Defense 

Readiness Reporting System Strategic (sec. 359) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 358(c) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) by striking ‘‘October 

1, 2019’’ and replacing it with ‘‘October 1, 2020.’’ 

The committee notes that the original provision required the 

Services to complete a transition to the Defense Readiness Reporting System Strategic no later than October 1, 2019. The technical 

correction to October 1, 2020 adjusts the deadline to conform with 

the report language and original intent. 

Budget Items 

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region 

The budget request included $417.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for SAG 122 Land Forces System 

Readiness. 

The committee recommends an increase of $29.2 million in OMA 

for SAG 122 in support of exercises and experimentation, 

wargaming, concept development, and other activities associated 

with the Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region. This 

increase would support essential capabilities for Multi-Domain Operations-Pacific as described in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

123 

The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S. IndoPacific Command to develop capabilities and operational concepts 

to maintain or restore the comparative military advantage of the 

United States in the Indo-Pacific region and to reduce the risk of 

executing contingency plans of the Department of Defense. As it 

develops, the Multi-Domain Task Force will have significant implications for force posture, force structure, and procurement priorities. Going forward, the committee urges the Department of the 

Army and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to keep the committee fully 

apprised of developments relating to activities associated with the 

Multi-Domain Task Force. 

Army Base Operations Support under execution 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $0.0 million was for SAG 131 

Base Operations Support. The committee notes that the budget request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to overseas contingency operations for SAG 131 Base Operations Support. 

The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the Government Accountability Office, Base Operations Support has historically under executed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $46.0 million in OMA to SAG 131 Base Operations Support. 

Army savings from revised housing cost share 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $0.0 million was for SAG 131 

Base Operations Support. The committee notes that the budget request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to overseas contingency operations for SAG 131 Base Operations Support. 

The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that 

would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the Services 

to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the discretion of 

the Secretary of the relevant military department on a project by 

project basis. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.4 million in OMA for SAG 131 Base Operations Support. 

C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence Operations 

Center Europe Analytic Center 

The budget request included $146.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), for SAG 142 US European Command. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million in OMA 

for SAG 142 to support life-cycle replacement of command, control, 

communication, computer, and intelligence systems and infrastructure at the Joint Intelligence Operations Center Europe Analytic 

Center at RAF Molesworth, United Kingdom. 

Army advertising and recruiting budget decrease 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $716.1 million was for SAG 

331 Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee notes that the Army requested $73.2 million in 

addition to its baseline advertising budget of $256.5 million and 

124 

$36.9 million in addition to its baseline recruiting budget of $349.9 

million. The committee further notes that the request represents a 

28.5 percent increase to advertising and a 10.5 percent increase to 

recruiting. When compared to its end strength increases over the 

future years defense program, the committee believes that this request is ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $80.0 million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising. The committee notes that the specific decreases recommended are $70.0 

million for advertising and $10.0 for recruiting. 

Army Other Personnel Support under execution 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $391.9 million was for SAG 

434 Other Personnel Support. 

The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the Government Accountability Office, Other Personnel Support has historically under executed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $28.0 million in OMA to SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

Army Claims Activities under execution 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $198.8 million was for SAG 

436 Army Claims Activities. 

The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the Government Accountability Office, Army Claims Activities has historically under executed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in OMA to SAG 436 Army Claims Activities. 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Army 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA). 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a provision 

that would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to use 

money authorized for appropriation for Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop cyber operations-peculiar capabilities. The provision would allow the Department of Defense to 

use its O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber capabilities that would be developed and used 

within the 1-year appropriation period. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed increase of $3.0 million in OMA for cyber operations-peculiar capabilities. 

Family housing pilot program 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA). 

The committee notes that in title XXX in this Act, the committee 

recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the 

Army to carry out a pilot program to build and monitor the use of 

not fewer than five single family homes for members of the Army 

and their families. 

125 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed increase of $1.0 million to OMA for the single family home pilot program. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army sustainment 

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which no funds were for Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) sustainment. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the Missile Defense Agency to the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an undistributed increase 

of $99.8 million in OMA for THAAD sustainment. 

Army National Guard facilities sustainment disaster recovery increase 

The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $1.1 billion 

was for SAG 132 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 

The committee notes that the Army National Guard has increasing facilities sustainment costs due to the catastrophic flooding in 

Nebraska impacting Camp Ashland and other guard equities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.2 million in OMARNG for SAG 132 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration 

& Modernization for disaster recovery. 

Army National Guard recruiting and advertising decrease 

The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $250.4 million 

was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

The committee notes that the Army National Guard requested 

$3.5 million in addition to its baseline marketing budget of $77.5 

million and $3.5 million in addition to its baseline recruiting budget of $7.9 million. The committee further notes that the request 

represents a 4.5 percent increase to marketing and a 44.3 percent 

increase to recruiting. When compared to its end strength increases 

over the future years defense program, the committee believes that 

this request is ahead of need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in OMARNG for SAG 434. The committee notes that the specific decreases recommended are $1.5 million for marketing and 

$1.5 million for recruiting. 

Navy depot maintenance unfunded requirement increase 

The budget request included $53.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $0.0 billion was for SAG 1B4B 

Ship Depot Maintenance. The committee notes that the budget request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to overseas contingency operations for SAG 1B4B Ship Depot Maintenance. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list included depot maintenance that directly impacts readiness through both submarine and ship maintenance. 

126 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $814.0 

million in OMN for SAG 1B4B to improve both submarine and ship 

maintenance. 

Posture site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $94.0 million was for SAG 

1CCM Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support. 

The committee notes the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis 

on evolving United States force posture to meet the challenges of 

strategic competition. In particular, the National Defense Strategy 

prioritizes forward force maneuver, posture resilience, and resilient 

and agile logistics. The committee is concerned with the insufficient 

pace of the transition from large, centralized, and unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient, and adaptive basing in 

the Indo-Pacific region. Accelerating this transition and reducing 

the risk of executing Department of Defense contingency plans will 

require support site assessments, planning and design, and followon military construction investments. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in OMN for SAG 1CCM to support the conduct of posture site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Navy housing cost share 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $0.0 billion was for SAG BSS1 

Base Operating Support. The committee notes that the budget request included a transfer of $4.4 billion from base to overseas contingency operations for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support. 

The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that 

would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the Services 

to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the discretion of 

the Secretary of the relevant military department on a project by 

project basis. The committee further notes that the Navy did not 

request this funding in its base request and instead treated this 

cost share mandate as an unfunded requirement. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.8 million in OMN for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support. 

Navy advertising reduction 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $209.3 million was for SAG 

3C1L Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee notes that the Navy requested $27.9 million in 

addition to its baseline advertising budget of $183.4 million. The 

committee further notes that the request represents a 15.2 percent 

increase to advertising. When compared to its end strength increases over the future years defense program, the committee believes that this request is ahead of need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in OMN for SAG 3C1L Recruiting and Advertising. 

127 

Navy administration decrease 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 

4A1M Administration. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in OMN 

for SAG 4A1M. 

Navy audit reduction 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 

4A1M Administration. 

The committee notes that within this request was an increase of $158.4 million for audit efforts, which has a baseline of $370.9 million. The committee notes that the Department of Defense has reported to the committee that the Navy is ranked last among 27 organizations within the DOD for progress in achieving a clean audit. 

While the committee notes the importance of the audit to making 

the Department of Defense more efficient, the committee believes 

that this increase is unjustified. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in OMN for SAG 4A1M for Navy audit efforts. 

Resilient Energy Program Office 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in the Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $485.3 million was for SAG 

4B2N Planning, Engineering, and Program Support. 

The committee continues to strongly support the Navy’s Resilient 

Energy Program Office (REPO), which has successfully executed 

over 49 energy resilience projects leveraging non-Department of 

Defense funding in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Florida, North 

Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Hawaii, Italy, and Japan. However, the committee understands that some fiscal year 2020 projects are at risk 

due to lack of funding in Texas, North Carolina, and several other 

states. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMN for SAG 4B2N for the REPO office to ensure that all 

fiscal year 2020 projects are executed. 

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities—Navy 

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN). 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a provision 

that would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to use 

money authorized for appropriation for Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. The provision would allow the Department of Defense to 

use its O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber capabilities that would be developed and used 

within the 1-year appropriation period. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed increase of $3.0 million in OMN for cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. 

128 

Cyber operations—peculiar capabilities—Marine Corps 

The budget request included $3.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC). 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a provision 

that would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to use 

money authorized for appropriation for Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. The provision would allow the Department of Defense to 

use its O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber capabilities that would be developed and used 

within the 1-year appropriation period. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed in- crease of $3.0 million in OMMC for cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. 

Air Force savings from revised housing cost share 

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $0.0 million was for SAG 

011Z Base Support. The committee notes that the budget request 

included a transfer of $7.2 billion from base to overseas contingency operations for SAG 011Z Base Support. 

The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that 

would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the Services 

to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the discretion of 

the Secretary of the relevant military department on a project by 

project basis. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.4 million in OMAF for SAG 011Z Base Support. 

US CYBERCOM 

The budget request included $323.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for SAG 015E US CYBERCOM. 

The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed to 

counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted in the 

National Defense Strategy. The committee recognizes the need to 

improve the capabilities of Cyber National Mission Force and 

therefore supports the request of U.S. Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM) to re-align certain funds to support the Cyber National Mission Force Capability Acceleration Plan. The committee 

also supports CYBERCOM’s request to increase funding for the 

Cyber National Mission Force Mobile and Modular Hunt Forward 

Kit and the ETERNALDARKNESS program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million 

to accelerate the development of Cyber National Mission Force capabilities, an increase of $5.3 million for the Cyber National Mission Force Mobile and Modular Hunt Forward Kit, and an increase 

of $18.0 million for ETERNALDARKNESS in OMAF for SAG 015E. 

Air Force advertising reduction 

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $167.7 million was for 

SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee notes that the Air Force requested $9.1 million in 

addition to its baseline advertising budget of $96.7 million. The 

129 

committee further notes that the request represents a 9.4 percent 

increase to advertising. When compared to its end strength increases over the future years defense program, the committee believes that this request is ahead of need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of $6.0 million for SAG 033A for Recruiting and Advertising. 

Cyber operations—peculiar capabilities—Air Force 

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF). 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a provision 

that would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to use 

money authorized for appropriation for Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. The provision would allow the Department of Defense to 

use its O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber capabilities that would be developed and used 

within the 1-year appropriation period. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed in- crease of $3.0 million in OMAF for cyber operations—peculiar capabilities. 

Innovative Readiness Training increase 

The budget request included $37.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $165.7 million was 

for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs. The committee notes that $15.7 million of the request for Civil 

Military Programs was for Innovative Readiness Training (IRT). 

The committee is aware that the Armed Forces continue to face 

readiness challenges due to budgetary constraints. The committee 

continues to recognize the value of IRT, which affords to the Armed 

Forces the most realistic joint training opportunities for National 

Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty members. 

The committee understands that IRT offers complex and challenging training opportunities for domestic and international crises. The committee is also aware that 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 all use IRT. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $14.3 million in OMDW for SAG 4GT3 for IRT. 

STARBASE program 

The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $165.7 million was 

for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs. 

The committee notes that the Science and Technology Academies 

Reinforcing Basic Aviation and Space Exploration (STARBASE) 

program is a highly effective program that improves the knowledge 

and skills of students in kindergarten through 12th grade in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for SAG 4GT3 

Civil Military Programs for the STARBASE program. 

130 

Defense Information Systems Agency MilCloud 

The budget request included $2.0 billion in OMA for SAG 4GT9 

Defense Information Systems Agency. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for SAG 

4GT9 for MilCloud. 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $601.2 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide(OMDW), SAG 4GU9 Defense Information Systems Agency—Cyber. 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $35.1 million in OMDW, SAG 4GU9 for the Sharkseer program. 

Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation 

The budget request includes $697.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which $9.1 million is for assessment, 

monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E). 

The committee notes that section 383 of title 10, United States 

Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to maintain an AM&E program of the security cooperation programs and activities of the Department of Defense (DOD). This requirement was included as an 

integral component of the security cooperation reforms contained in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to ensure that the DOD allocates sufficient emphasis and resourcing to developing and implementing an AM&E 

program that is rigorous and comprehensive, that provides for the 

continuous review of security cooperation programs from inception 

to completion, and that measures outcomes against clearly defined 

objectives. DOD’s progress to date in developing the organizational 

capacity and expertise to conduct AM&E across the security cooperation enterprise is wholly inadequate. The committee notes 

that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s fiscal year 2020 

base and overseas contingency operations budget request for its security cooperation account, the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative—all programs largely focused on providing equipment and training to tactical and operational-level forces of foreign partners—is approximately $1.6 billion while its budget request for AM&E is $9.1 million. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTD for AM&E. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $697.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which $397.0 million is for the security cooperation account. 

131 

The committee notes that the reforms to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) security cooperation enterprise required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328) sought to rationalize and streamline the authorities and 

associated funding available for security cooperation and enhance 

the effectiveness of DOD planning, execution, and oversight. Additionally, that law emphasized the critical importance of non-materiel solutions to the effectiveness of DOD security cooperation efforts, namely through an increased emphasis on building the institutional capacity of foreign partners to more competently manage 

and sustain their own forces and the equipment and related assistance provided by the United States. The reforms also highlighted 

the need to mature the DOD security cooperation workforce and 

the development and implementation of a rigorous assessment, 

monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E) program to ensure that DOD 

programs are appropriately scoped and meeting clearly defined objectives. 

However, while funding for DSCA’s security cooperation account—which is primarily used to provide equipment and training 

to foreign partners to build capacity at the tactical and operational 

levels—has grown from approximately $895 million in fiscal year 

2018 for base and OCO to the $1.2 billion requested for fiscal year 

2020 for base and OCO, the DOD continues to insufficiently 

prioritize and resource congressionally-mandated efforts relating to 

DOD security cooperation workforce development, AM&E, and institutional capacity building. The committee believes that this imbalance inhibits appropriate security cooperation program design, 

execution, and oversight, which could lead to suboptimal outcomes 

and wasted taxpayer dollars. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTD for the security cooperation account. 

Consolidated adjudication facility 

The budget requested included $889.7 million in Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTE Defense Security Service. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the 

Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, for a total of $899.7 million in OMDW 

for SAG 4GTE Defense Security Service. 

Impact aid 

The budget request included $45.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $2.9 billion was for 

SAG 4GTJ Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount 

authorized to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following 

changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying these 

changes in funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V 

of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............... +40.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .............................. +10.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +50.0 

132 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency sustainment 

The budget request included $37.4 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $522.5 million was 

for SAG011A Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its views regarding the transition of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

program from the MDA to the Department of the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $99.8 million 

in OMDW for SAG011A MDA. 

Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were proposed for Bien Hoa 

dioxin cleanup in Vietnam. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nation-wide 

human health assessment 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were proposed for the ongoing 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Nation-wide 

human health assessment related to contaminated sources of 

drinking water from per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. 

The committee continues to strongly support the ongoing human 

health assessment. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the ongoing 

CDC assessment. 

Department of Defense Emerging Contaminants increase 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were for the 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 the DOD has 

not allocated enough resources to the office given its workload and 

the likelihood that the 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 in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the DOD Emerging Contaminants. 

Industrial Policy program support 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
133 

retary of Defense, including funds for Industrial Policy program 

support. 

The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of Defense report titled ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of 

the United States’’ includes numerous recommendations for addressing risks in the industrial base. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN to fund Industrial Policy program 

support to facilitate the acquisition of tools and performance of 

analysis needed to address industrial base risks. 

Improvement of occupational license portability for military 

spouses through interstate compacts 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The committee remains concerned about the lack of portability of 

employment licenses and credentials across State lines, which 

hinders military spouse employment. Due to the delays and expense involved in re-licensure and re-credentialing, many military 

spouses decide not to practice their professions. This becomes a financial and career choice issue for military families, impacting 

servicemembers’ desire to stay in the military. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN, for the activities outlined in title V 

of this Act. The relevant provision would require the Secretary of 

Defense to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Council of 

State Governments to assist with the funding and development of 

interstate compacts on licensed occupations. 

National Commission on Military Aviation Safety 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee is recommending a provision that extends the term for the National Commission on Military Aviation Safety. The committee notes that this extension will 

require additional funding. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the National Commission on 

Military Aviation Safety. 

Supplemental funding for the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

As required by law, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service is expected to deliver its final report in 

the spring of 2020. This unique commission will make important 

recommendations that, if realized, could affect every American. 

Due to the breadth of the Commission’s mandate and the extensive 

outreach required to engage with Americans across the country, 

134 

the commission may exceed its original funding authorization by a 

modest amount. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

in OMDW for SAG 4GTN to provide supplemental funding for the 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense, 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 long-term 

threat to readiness and to the viability of military installations, 

ranges, and airspace throughout the country. The REPI involves 

partnerships between the Department of Defense (DOD), State and 

local governments, and conservation organizations to share the 

costs of acquiring proactive easements from willing landowners. 

The committee continues to support the mission of the REPI and 

believes that the program has proven to be highly effective in addressing encroachment. The committee supports REPI’s mission 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 to ‘‘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.’’ 

However, the committee is concerned that the DOD continues to 

underfund the REPI despite its success to date and the high degree 

of leverage from partner contributions. 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 in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the REPI and strongly encourages the Department to reflect in future REPI budget requests the 

urgency of the problem of encroachment and the success the REPI 

has achieved in addressing this problem. 

Defense Digital Service expert civilians 

The budget request included $324.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTQ Washington 

Headquarters Services. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Defense Digital 

Service in helping the Department of Defense to build, buy, and deploy technology and digital services. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMA for SAG 4GTQ Washington Headquarters Services for 

the Defense Digital Service. 

Sharkseer transfer 

The budget request included $15.7 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), SAG 9999 Classified Programs. 

135 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity program 

from the National Security Agency to the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.1 million 

in OMDW, SAG 9999 for the Sharkseer program. 

Foreign currency fluctuation reduction 

The budget request included $158.1 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 $607.0 million for 

FCF. 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps increase 

The budget request included $292.8 billion in total Operations 

and Maintenance funding, of which $316.3 million was for Junior 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC). 

The committee believes that JROTC programs are an important 

program for the Nation and have historically been underfunded by 

the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in Operations and Maintenance, to be allocated to the Services 

for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs. 

Printing inefficiency reduction 

The budget request included $158.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance. 

The committee notes that a recent Government Accountability 

Report found numerous inefficiencies in the printing operating of 

the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $8.0 million for printing inefficiencies. 

Transfer of OCO to Base account 

The budget request included $123.9 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance in base funding. The committee notes that the President’s budget request included $97.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee believes that OCO 

for Base funding should be transferred into the base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.3 billion to Operation and Maintenance base funding. 

Items of Special Interest 

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. 

136 

With this steady surge, the committee believes the capabilities of 

the United States to conduct search and rescue operations throughout the Arctic needs to be commensurate for the activity in the 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 by 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 and only dedicated response force 

with the refueling capability to respond to a search and rescue incident in the Arctic. The committee notes that the unit currently possesses 2 air-dropped, palletized Arctic Sustainment Packages to enable the survival of 50 individuals for 3 or more days in extreme 

Arctic conditions. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to review how additional resources could benefit search and 

rescue operations throughout the Arctic region. 

Army Training Next virtual reality pilot program 

The committee recognizes the advantages of augmenting rotary 

wing initial entry aviator training with virtual reality flight capabilities. The United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence is 

executing a series of pilot programs to validate the effectiveness 

and potential cost savings of virtual flight training throughout fiscal year 2019. The committee is encouraged by the Army’s adoption 

of this training approach, which will increase frequency and repetitions of basic flight maneuvers using a low-cost commercial off-theshelf virtual training solution. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing to the committee no later than January 1, 2020, 

comparing the results of the three pilot programs to the traditional 

training curriculum and detailing the results of the three separate 

iterations with an emphasis on student proficiency, comprehension, 

progress, and cost avoidance. 

Battle Record Information Core Environment (BRICE) 

maintenance application 

The committee is encouraged by the Air Force’s Battle Record Information Core Environment program (BRICE), which was developed in partnership with industry and validated to the National 

Security Agency’s National Information Assurance Partnership 

standard. This has enabled BRICE to become the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) first connected mobile application authorized for 

mission-enabling tasks to be performed with DOD controlled unclassified information leveraging both cloud (United States Air 

Force Cloud Computing Environment) and legacy mainframe systems. The limited introduction of BRICE to the Air Force Reserve 

Center aircraft maintenance community at Davis Monthan AFB 

has resulted in time savings per maintenance action, improved 

137 

data accuracy, and increased efficiency in repairs and maintenance 

on A–10 aircraft. The committee is encouraged by the Air Force’s 

BRICE program and its mission to increase flight readiness while 

driving down the cost of maintaining the fleet of A–10 aircraft. The 

committee recommends that the Air Force examine opportunities to 

expand the BRICE iOS app to all Active-Duty and reserve maintainers that support the A–10 and the F–16 fleets. 

Cold spray technology 

The committee recognizes the advancements of cold spray technologies and the need to accelerate the delivery of technical capabilities to impact the warfighter and to advance dominant technologies in a timely manner. The committee notes that the use of 

cold spray technologies in certain applications during the production, repair, and maintenance process may lead to significant cost 

savings for the Department of Defense. The committee strongly recommends continued development and use of this technology across 

the Services to include science and technology, manufacturing, and 

procurement programs. 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense utility resilience planning to support cybersecurity threats 

The committee recognizes that on-base utilities systems within 

the Department of Defense (DOD) are increasingly being connected 

to the internet. The benefits of such connection could include improved utilities efficiencies and the collection of more near-realtime data for improved utilities management. At the same time, 

the connectivity could expose DOD utilities systems to cyber 

threats that could undermine installation mission capability. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to evaluate: (1) To what extent have the military departments implemented a DOD instruction to enhance the cybersecurity of industrial control systems and what, if anything, remains 

incomplete as of the time of the start of this review; (2) What challenges have the military departments encountered in implementing 

DOD Instruction 8510.01 and how effectively have the challenges 

been overcome; (3) How effectively have the military departments 

implemented industry leading practices to enhance utilities industrial control systems cybersecurity; and (4) How effectively do the 

military departments conduct tests of the cybersecurity of industrial control systems and implement improvements to security to 

counter any identified weaknesses. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide a briefing on the preliminary findings to 

the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2020, 

with a final report to be provided at a mutually agreed upon time. 

Comptroller General review of mobility in contested environments 

The committee recognizes that the United States has the most 

advanced military equipment and the best-trained troops in the 

world. The committee notes, however, that military strength means 

little if the United States cannot deploy and sustain its forces 

wherever they are needed. Moving U.S. troops and military cargo 

138 

is the role of strategic mobility-airlift to fly cargo and personnel, 

sealift to steam cargo and equipment from the United States, and 

ships or warehouses based abroad that pre-position key equipment 

and sustainment supplies. The committee understands that future 

military conflicts are increasingly likely to occur in an environment 

contested across all domains, subsequently restricting freedom of 

mobility assets and putting these forces at risk. Operational plans 

must reflect the anticipated attrition of both combat and mobility 

assets and associated personnel. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in the process of a critical examination of 

how it executes mobility in contested environments, but it remains 

concerned that strategic mobility requirements may not be fully addressed. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees to address the following: (1) How are strategic mobility 

mission requirements evolving, and what implications, if any, are 

there for strategic mobility force structure; (2) What challenges 

does the Department face in protecting strategic mobility forces, 

and what impact, if any, do these have on maintaining needed 

warfighting capabilities and readiness; (3) To what extent has the 

Department developed mitigation plans to address any challenges 

and risk areas, to include relevant training, exercises, and concept 

development; and (4) Any other related matters deemed appropriate in order to provide a comprehensive examination of mobility 

in contested environments. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a preliminary classified briefing to the Senate Armed Services 

Committee not later than February 1, 2020, with the report to be 

submitted at a date to be determined at the time of the briefing. 

Corrosion prevention briefing 

The committee is aware of the significant problem caused by corrosion, which can lead to costly repairs and decreased readiness of 

military forces. The committee notes that according to a 2016 Department of Defense report, corrosion costs in 2016 alone were 

$20.6 billion, and the Government Accountability Office has produced numerous report citing the direct correlation between corrosion and readiness. The committee believes that, to most effectively 

meet mission-critical demands for military painter training at 

bases across the United States, which directly impacts corrosion, 

the Department could establish a competitive bidding process for a 

National Center for Military Painter Training and Applied Research. The committee believes that such a program could enable 

the Department to maximize readiness, safety, and cost savings 

through corrosion prevention and control by meeting the demand 

for trained military painters, growing partnerships in the military 

paint industry, and expanding the role of technology in painter 

training and certification. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to provide a 

briefing, no later than November 1, 2019, to the congressional defense committees on the following: (1) A list of facilities, labs, and 

universities focused on corrosion prevention, to include a description of work for each location; (2) Current funding sources for each 

139 

location; (3) Return on investment, if applicable, for each location; 

and (4) A determination by the Department if a National Center 

for Military Painter Training and Applied Research could benefit 

the Department, and, if so, the cost, steps, and process required to 

create and establish such a center. 

Data collection and reporting to validation of small arms 

simulation readiness improvements and resourcing 

planning 

The committee continues to recognize that substantial value can 

be gained through small arms simulation training systems that use 

biometrics, advanced human performance techniques, and robust 

data collection and reporting to maximize and verify improved 

lethality and readiness requirements. The committee particularly 

notes the importance of next generation internet technology-based 

systems capable of automatically collecting and reporting on hundreds of points of trainee data, such as shooter baselines, rounds 

fired, target engagement, live-fire readiness, and qualification 

standards outcomes. Some of these systems also use algorithms to 

determine remediation requirements. 

The committee believes that this type of data collection and analysis is essential to validating that the appropriate military 

servicemembers are receiving the lethality and warfighter readiness training that they require and to driving more data-informed 

resourcing determinations during the planning, programming, and 

budgeting process. The committee is concerned, however, that there 

continues to be a reliance across the Services on legacy small arms 

training systems and programs of record that are not capable of, 

or are not required to, deliver advanced human performance, biometrics, and overall trainee data collection and reporting capabilities, making it difficult to validate a system’s true training effectiveness, its cost savings (in ammunition, reduced training time, 

travel, and range safety), and overall justification for system 

sustainment and budget submissions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs each of the Secretaries of the 

military departments to provide a report, no later than February 

1, 2020, detailing plans to ensure that all existing and new small 

arms training systems, or training-as-a-service contracts, are capable of delivering advanced human performance techniques, biometrics, and robust shooter data collection, to include descriptions 

of how these data will be used to: (1) Validate each system’s effectiveness in delivering readiness, lethality requirements, and measurable live fire qualification improvements; and (2) Drive more informed determinations for training and readiness resourcing across 

the planning, programming, budget, and execution process. 

Defense energy resilience tools for project development 

The committee is encouraged by the progress made by the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to standardize tools to encourage the implementation of 

policies that accelerate energy resilience project development, such 

as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratories 

(MIT–LL) life-cycle cost analysis tool. The tool allows the Department of Defense to align its mission requirements with cost effecVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
140 

tive energy resilience solutions and to meet National Defense Strategy objectives. The committee notes that senior leaders across the 

Department have stated that the Department is developing and implementing this life-cycle cost analysis tool for use across the enterprise. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide an implementation plan for the MIT–LL life cycle cost 

analysis tool to ensure the effective adoption of mission-based decision-making and for the successful implementation of energy resilience projects across the Department of Defense. At a minimum, 

the committee directs that the Department provide the list of military installations that have and will implement the life-cycle cost 

analysis tool, along with the funding required by fiscal year to implement the tool’s adoption and use. This plan shall include the 

necessary partnerships needed to develop, implement, and integrate the life-cycle cost analysis tool in the most cost-effective manner. The Secretary shall provide this plan to the Senate Armed 

Services Committee no later than February 1, 2020. 

Development and fielding of expeditionary energy technology in the Department of Defense 

The committee acknowledges the significant logistical burden 

that fossil fuel generators place on expeditionary forces operating 

at home and abroad. Further, the committee understands the necessity of increasing agility in the future operating environment by 

reducing the logistical footprint required to sustain forces. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to invest broadly in emerging technology to harness, integrate, and 

store energy from multiple energy sources to extend the operational 

reach of Active-Duty, reserve, and National Guard forces. 

Encroachment on military installations 

The committee notes that the Military Aviation and Installation 

Assurance Siting Clearinghouse was established years ago to 

deconflict and strike a balance with potential encroachment from 

energy projects near military installations while assuring that military operations and training continue unabated and with minimal 

impact. The committee strongly encourages the Clearinghouse to 

continue to ensure mission compatibility and appropriately collaborate with individual military installations, States, and developers 

on any mitigation measures. Lastly, the committee encourages the 

Clearinghouse to consider future military requirements when reviewing and approving any energy projects to ensure that such 

projects are consistent with the National Defense Strategy. 

Extended funding obligation period for private contracted 

ship maintenance 

The committee notes that the administration submitted a legislative proposal that would enable the Navy to conduct a ship depot 

maintenance pilot program to evaluate the benefits of an extended 

funding obligation period for private contracted ship maintenance. 

This pilot program would include an extension of the obligation 

period of fiscal year 2020 funding for private contracted ship maintenance through September 30, 2021. 

141 

The committee supports the inclusion of this administration legislative proposal in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2020. 

The committee believes that the pilot program would demonstrate that the performance of lengthy maintenance availabilities, which often cross fiscal years, improves with additional flexibility to more efficiently employ funds appropriated by the Congress, before, during, and after scheduled maintenance availabilities. 

Improving Navy radar training and readiness 

The committee is aware that the Navy currently lacks schoolhouse radar training assets for three ship classes, resulting in no 

hands-on training for sailors destined for these ships before reporting aboard ship. The committee notes the criticality of radar to a 

ship’s defensive capabilities and that a lack of training has the potential to impact both overall readiness and combat capability of 

the fleet. The committee believes that sailors will be best positioned to operate, maintain, and fully utilize the capabilities of the 

radar with enhanced hands-on training prior to reporting aboard 

ship. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 1, 2020, with a plan to determine what schoolhouse 

training assets are required for all ship radar systems to include 

what resources would be required. The report shall include at a 

minimum a complete listing of all Navy radar systems, land-based 

assets used to train sailors on those radar systems, radar systems 

that do not currently have land-based radar training assets, and a 

timeline to acquire missing land-based radar training assets. 

Improving oversight of pilots in non-operational staff positions 

The committee has been concerned about the Air Force’s ability 

to sustain the required numbers of aviators in the face of competing demands for their services, including increased demand for 

aviators in remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operating units and continued demand for rated officers in non-flying positions. The committee commends the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for 

its report, published in February 2019, titled ‘‘Unmanned Aerial 

Systems: Air Force Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but 

Oversight Process of Some Positions Could Be Enhanced’’ (GAO– 

19–155). 

In the report, the GAO observed that ‘‘[t]he Air Force has not reviewed its oversight process to ensure that it is efficiently managing its non-operational staff positions that require aviator expertise. Air Force officials explained that over the last 10 years, the 

Air Force reduced the number of squadrons but had not reviewed 

the number of non-operational staff positions. Similarly, the Air 

Force has had no widely accessible oversight process to monitor 

whether it had established an accurate number of non-operational 

staff positions required to support the new RPA career field.’’ As 

a result, the committee believes that, at a minimum, the Air Force 

must regularly review justifications for non-operational staff posiVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
142 

tions requiring pilot expertise as part of a broader strategy to address the pilot shortage. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to establish a mechanism to review the justifications for non-operational staff positions requiring pilot expertise at regular intervals 

and to report to the committee by September 30, 2020, on the 

mechanism to be established to accomplish these periodic reviews. 

The Secretary’s review and report shall include evaluation of the 

mix of positions requiring pilot expertise as well as the mix of operational positions and support positions required to support operations. 

Liability exposure for electric companies during national 

emergencies 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) Mission Assurance Strategy emphasizes the importance of 

grid-provided power and the ability of DOD installations to execute 

their full range of missions. The committee is concerned that in the 

event of intentional or unintentional power outages, DOD installations may not be currently structured to have assured access to 

such energy as needed to implement the National Defense Strategy. Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the DOD, in 

coordination with other federal agencies, to work with the Congress 

to find a solution. 

Lightweight ammunition 

The committee is aware of continued progress in reducing weight 

for vehicle, helicopter, and soldier platforms through the development and qualification of polymer ammunition and polymer link 

systems. These developments support urgent requirements in reducing the weight burden on all weapon systems and, in particular, 

helicopter systems. Further, the committee understands that, over 

the last several years, initial polymer ammunition and polymer 

links have been qualified, fielded, and combat proven. There remains a continued urgent need for further polymer ammunition 

and polymer link weight reduction. As such, the committee recommends continued support to develop and qualify further weight 

savings in polymer ammunition and polymer link systems. 

Marine Depot Maintenance Command facilities review 

The committee notes the organic industrial base serves as the 

backbone of our Nation’s military readiness. Specific to the Marine 

Corps, the committee notes that the Marine Corps’ Marine Depot 

Maintenance Command (MDMC), comprised of Production Plant 

Albany and Production Plant Barstow, provides worldwide expeditionary logistics support to the Fleet Marine Force, other forces, 

and agencies. The committee understands that the MDMC is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of ground 

equipment that keeps the Nation’s fighting forces’ weapon systems 

in a constant state of readiness. 

The committee notes that the facilities at Production Plant Albany average 26 years, which hinders its ability to adopt and sustain innovative processes and equipment solutions, thereby hampering its overall effectiveness and hurting the overall readiness of 

143 

the Marine Corps. For example, the committee understands that 

automation and robotics in the blast and paint processes would 

greatly improve throughput but the current facilities will not support the technology. The committee further notes that welding operations need welding positions to increase safety, efficiency, and 

quality but the facilities do not have sufficient space and overhead 

clearance. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

review the current facilities of the MDMC and provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 

1, 2020, on how the facilities at Production Plant Albany and Production Plant Barstow impact the Marine Corps’ ability to adopt 

and sustain innovative process and equipment solutions. The briefing shall include cost estimates and timelines for improving 

throughput and increasing efficiency with items such as but not 

limited to automation, robotics, and welding positions. 

National Guard Unit equipped flying squadrons 

The committee recognizes that the Air National Guard enterprise 

is based on established capstone principles that notionally set the 

foundational framework for mission allocation in the 54 states and 

territories. One of those Capstone Principles is to allocate at least 

one unit-equipped wing and flying squadron to each State. New 

Mexico is one of three states-the others being Virginia and Washington-that have an operational flying mission, but, due to the classic associate construct, it lacks ownership of aircraft. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation 

with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to report to the committee within 60 days of the date of the enactment of this Act to 

present additional options for achieving an operational flying mission in each State. 

Prepositioned Assets in the Indo-Pacific Region 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) positions billions of dollars’ worth of assets, including combat vehicles, rations, medical supplies, and repair parts, at strategic locations around the world to use during early phases of operations. In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the DOD acknowledged an increasingly complex global security environment, characterized by the re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition 

among nations such as China and Russia. In addition, the strategy 

emphasized the need for investments to prioritize prepositioned 

stocks in order to enable resilient and agile logistics during initial 

operations. In February 2019, the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific 

Command (INDOPACOM) called China and Russia-with their expanding and modernizing militarizes-key threats to the region. For 

many years, the Government Accountability Office has identified 

the potential for duplication among the Services’ prepositioned 

stock programs due to limited joint oversight and fragmented management within the DOD. Further, the committee has had an ongoing interest in DOD’s strategy and oversight of its propositioning 

programs. 

Accordingly, given these issues and the National Defense Strategy’s priorities, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

144 

the United States to evaluate the following: (1) What types of 

equipment and materiel does the DOD preposition in the Pacific region and what is the condition of these assets; (2) To what extent 

has DOD assessed its strategy for prepositioning assets in the Pacific region based on the 2018 National Defense Strategy; (3) To 

what extent do the Services coordinate their prepositioning programs in the Pacific region in order to achieve efficiencies and reduce unnecessary duplication; (4) What challenges, if any, does 

DOD face in prepositioning assets in the Pacific region; (5) What 

do the Services’ operational and logistics concepts mean for future 

prepositioning requirements; (6) What types of equipment is necessary and at what locations; and (7) Are future plans being coordinated by the Services and informed by INDOPACOM contingency 

plans? 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the committee on the preliminary observations of 

this review, not later than February 1, 2020, and to submit a report on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Preservation of the Force and Families initiative 

The committee notes that nearly 2 decades of continuous combat 

operations and the associated effects of an extraordinarily high 

operational tempo in physically and mentally demanding environments has placed enormous stress on our special operations forces 

(SOF) and their families. In response to the unique requirements 

of SOF, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) established 

the Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) initiative in 

order to provide holistic physiological, psychological, family, and 

spiritual performance support programs at all echelons of SOCOM 

and the SOF components. The committee strongly supports the 

POTFF program and believes that it is integral for ensuring the 

readiness, health, and mission effectiveness of SOF while also providing SOF families with support to deal with the unique challenges that they face, including unpredictable training and deployment cycles. The committee encourages SOCOM to continue to 

prioritize the POTFF program and seek innovative opportunities to 

ensure POTFF remains effective and responsive to the needs of 

SOF and their families. 

Public-to-public partnerships briefing requirement 

The committee recognizes the Department of Defense’s continuing efforts to control costs and increase reliability in its installation utility systems. Whether through energy savings performance contracts, utility energy savings contracts, or some other contract vehicle, the committee commends the Department for 

leveraging private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance installation resiliency. 

The committee notes with interest that the Department commissioned a report in 2016 on the use of public-to-public partnerships 

by military installations. Such partnerships, including intergovernmental service agreements, may be one approach to sustaining operations and services for military installations. The committee believes that public-to-public partnerships should continue to be a 

145 

tool for the Services to increase installation readiness and resiliency and to enhance military families’ quality of life. 

The committee recommends that the Department work with 

State and local communities to lower barriers that inhibit consideration or implementation of public-to-public partnerships. The committee is interested in novel approaches to installation readiness 

and resiliency and is willing to consider providing new authorities 

to support such efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, not later than December 1, 2019, on current public-to-public 

partnerships. The briefing shall include at a minimum the number 

of public-to-public partnerships in place, the estimated cost savings 

such partnerships provide, barriers preventing broader use of such 

partnerships, and partnerships that are currently under consideration. 

Recycled content in clothing items 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) on 

its most recent update to DOD Instruction 4105.11, ‘‘Procurement 

of Sustainable Goods and Services,’’ dated August 31, 2018. Further, the committee supports the DOD’s efforts to give preference 

to the procurement of sustainable goods and recycled content products. These efforts were highlighted in the DOD’s October 2012 Report to Congress on the Preference for Uniforms, Organizational 

Clothing, and Personal Equipment that Contain Recycled Materials, a report required by the Senate report accompanying S. 1253 

(S. Rept. 112–26) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This report cited four military clothing items that, 

at the time, used recycled materials, including the Protective Combat Uniform for the Special Forces, the Third Generation Extended 

Cold Weather Clothing System, underwear, and the Army fleece 

jacket. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not 

later than February 1, 2020, on the feasibility of incorporating 

more recycled content products into these clothing items and other 

environmental protection clothing items. 

Report on future Combat Search and Rescue in support of 

National Defense Strategy 

The committee acknowledges that the Air Force is the only service with a Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) capability to provide 

to a Joint Force Commander and is concerned with maintaining 

this critical mission in the face of great power competition. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to 

complete a comprehensive study on the future combat search and 

rescue mission in the near peer threat environment expected in the 

2030s. Prior to any realignment of rescue assets and by September 

30, 2020, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force shall present the findings and recommendations of the study to the congressional defense committees. This study shall address: 

(1) The evolving threat environment and its significance to 

the CSAR mission; 

(2) The optimal organizational responsibility for CSAR and 

components of a task force; 

146 

(3) Alternative solutions to maintaining the social contract 

with isolated personnel (IP) that a rescue force is available to 

return the IP to friendly forces; 

(4) Title 10 service responsibilities and joint force mission 

sets, to include command and control, planning and execution, 

and IP recovery; and 

(5) Any other matters that the Chief of Staff deems relevant. 

Report on guidelines for maintenance and preservation of 

Department of Defense historic aircraft and spacecraft 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

lacks clear and consistent guidelines for maintaining and disposing 

historic aircraft and spacecraft. The national collection of historic 

military aircraft and spacecraft is an important asset that helps 

honor our veterans and educates the public about key milestones 

in American history and military technology. However, there have 

been recent instances of historical aircraft being destroyed or sold 

for scrap without opportunity for the Department or an aviation 

museum to consider their preservation. It is in the best interest of 

the public to ensure that the Department has a clear process to determine disposition of historic aircraft and spacecraft given their 

historical value. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study that reviews the existing process for retiring and disposing historical military aircraft and spacecraft. The study shall 

also recommend a strategy with clear and consistent guidelines for 

the preservation, restoration, or disposition of historic aircraft and 

spacecraft. In addition, the study shall consider the merits of creating a review board comprised of representatives from service 

aviation museums and other public aircraft museums to ensure 

that deliberations relating to historic aircraft and spacecraft are inclusive of various perspectives. The Secretary shall present the results of the study in a report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2020. 

Report on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid contamination on military installations 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2020, a report listing military and Coast Guard installations or facilities potentially germane to the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid Lifetime Drinking Water (PFOA) Health 

Advisories established by the Environmental Protection Agency 

and those whose drinking water supply may exceed the PFOA and 

PFOS levels recommended in these advisories. The Secretary shall 

consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency and affected States, tribes, and local governments, using information on PFOA and PFOS manufacturing and use. 

147 

Report on Special Federal Aviation Regulation waivers for 

U.S. air carriers and recommendations to expedite redesignation of civil aircraft as state aircraft 

The committee is aware that there are cases in which U.S. forces 

do not have organic capacity to provide for personnel recovery and 

medical evacuation and are forced to rely on contract aircraft and 

aircrew to meet this critical mission requirement. The committee 

encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to utilize U.S. companies to fill the mission requirement to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the committee is concerned that the existing 

process for DOD to obtain Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) waivers for U.S. air carriers prevents the Department from 

executing critical missions in a safe, effective, and timely manner. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

promptly notify the congressional defense committees, beginning on 

the date of the enactment of this Act, on Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) waivers requested by the DOD from the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) that are: (1) Approved; (2) Denied; 

or (3) Still awaiting action from the FAA 15 days after the original 

request date. The committee also directs the Secretary to conduct 

a study on the existing process for DOD’s re-designating civil aircraft as state aircraft and, based on the findings, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 1, 2020, with recommendations that would expedite the designation process. 

Rotary-wing aviation foreign internal defense 

The committee notes that, in 2012, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) decided to transfer responsibility for the rotarywing aviation foreign internal defense (RW AvFID) mission from 

U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command to U.S. Army Special 

Operations Command (USASOC). At the time, the committee expressed concern about the planned transfer of responsibility and 

the potential degradation of the quality and availability of special 

operations-unique RW capabilities to meet the requirements of the 

geographic combatant commanders, particularly those capabilities 

resident in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment 

(SOAR). While the committee understands the importance of training partner nation aviation forces and supports the broader AvFID 

mission, there remain concerns about whether the current designation of USASOC and, in particular, the use of the 160th SOAR as 

the principal special operations forces aviation unit for RW AvFID 

is the most efficient and effective approach to meet related requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of 

SOCOM to provide a briefing not later than July 1, 2019, on 

SOCOM’s current approach to the RW AvFID mission. The briefing 

shall address, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) A description of SOCOM’s current RW AvFID requirements; 

(2) A description of any changes to USASOC’s organization, 

manning, and resourcing as a result of its assumption of the 

RW AvFID mission; 

(3) An assessment of USASOC’s operational readiness and 

ability to meet RW AvFID requirements; 

148 

(4) An assessment of the impact of USASOC’s assuming the 

RW AvFID mission on its ability to meet its other non-FID-related RW operational and training requirements; 

(5) Any other matters that the Commander deems relevant. 

Storm water utilities privatization 

The committee has repeatedly expressed its support for the utilities privatization (UP) program, which enhances energy supply, efficiency, reliability, and resilience. Privatization of storm water systems is especially important, particularly in light of recent devastating storms that imperil base infrastructure inland and along 

the coasts. Despite clear direction from the Congress, elements of 

the Department have taken positions on storm water privatization 

that contravene the intent of the Congress and prevent the Services from realizing the financial and readiness benefits of UP. The 

Army’s policy, however, has been a welcome exception to this general recalcitrance. The Army successfully privatized storm water 

systems at Fort Knox pursuant to section 2688 of title 10, United 

States Code, in 2004. Because the committee supports a data-driven approach as outlined in the Department’s supplemental guidance on UP issued in February 2019, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to provide a report, no later than March 1, 

2020, analyzing the savings and efficiencies that it has realized 

from the Fort Knox privatization effort. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form and for public distribution, but it may 

contain a restricted annex. 

Study on fire extinguishers 

The committee is aware that portable fire extinguishers are essential to the safety of members of the Armed Forces and their 

families. The committee notes that protection of servicemembers 

and their families is imperative to the readiness of the force. Every 

Department of Defense 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 (NFPA) and 

the International Code Council (ICC) 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 

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) has the potential to harm force 

readiness and protection across the Services. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

deliver a report to the congressional defense committees, no later 

than March 1, 2020, on the current fire suppression mechanisms, 

with emphasis on the need for portable fire extinguishers, employed by the Department. The study should include but not be 

limited to: (1) A breakdown of all fire codes that the Department 

follows in accordance with requirements set forth by the national 

model fire codes developed by the NFPA and the ICC; (2) Any fire 

codes the Department does not follow with justification for why it 

is waived; (3) The types of buildings that currently employ both 

sprinklers and extinguishers; (4) A list of high-risk types of buildings that would benefit from redundant fire suppression that include risks to personnel or egress concerns; (5) Specific to on-base 

149 

housing, what, if any, fire extinguishers are supplied for cooking 

areas by either the Department or private contractors; (6) Recommendations, including a timeline, on how to implement redundant fire suppression mechanisms and what changes to the UFC 

would be required. 

Westover Air Reserve Base—Defense Logistics Agency study 

of fuel pipeline 

The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) has chosen to transition fuel services to Westover Air Reserve Base (ARB) from pipeline services to tank trucks as a delivery method. The DLA solicited a jet fuel requirement and evaluated both the Buckeye pipeline and tank truck services, utilizing 

a bid evaluation model (BEM) and a mixed integer linear optimization program that evaluates a variety of factors, including product 

prices, transportation costs, additive costs, and excessive throughput charges. The committee understands that, after utilizing the 

BEM, the laid-down cost for fuel tank truck services was over 1 

cent lower than the laid-down cost for pipeline delivery, and the resultant savings were $42,000. The committee notes that the DLA 

claims that the Buckeye jet fuel pipeline to Westover ARB is still 

available for use in the event of delivery interruptions. 

The committee needs to understand the strategic impacts of this 

action to Department of Defense operators who may rely on this 

pipeline during surge conditions and contingency operations, especially given that Westover ARB is the largest reserve airbase in the 

country. Part of its core mission and function is to provide surge 

capacity to the expeditionary Air Force during any rapid deployment to Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere. The committee 

notes that Westover ARB has demonstrated this surge capacity 

during real world contingencies in the past. The decision to switch 

from pipeline to truck delivery was based solely on cost, and the 

savings, while noteworthy, are not significant. The committee is 

concerned that this action could have profound impacts during an 

emergency and questions whether the movement from pipeline to 

fuel trucks may increase risk for rather small cost savings. 

Therefore, the committee directs the DLA to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees, no later than February 1, 

2020, on: (1) How emergency and contingencies were factored into 

the DLA’s analysis; (2) How emergencies and contingencies will be 

handled when there is a rapid increase in the need for fuel; (3) 

How quickly the Buckeye pipeline can be activated during an emergency or during any day-to-day disruptions of fuel delivery to 

Westover; and (4) Whether there would be any cost implications of 

re-activating the fuel pipeline to Westover ARB. 

Women servicemember personal protective equipment 

The committee understands that a leading cause of injury among 

servicemembers is ill-fitting personal protective equipment (PPE) 

and combat gear and that women disproportionately incur such injuries. The committee further recognizes that properly fitting 

equipment enhances performance and reduces safety risks. The 

committee believes that all servicemembers should be properly 

equipped with correctly fitting PPE and combat gear during trainVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
150 

ing and deployment, especially given that consistent physical training with PPE used in a combat environment has been demonstrated to decrease the likelihood of injury. Although the committee acknowledges recent progress made by the Services to provide appropriate PPE and combat gear for a variety of body types, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to identify and address barriers to equipment access and delays in delivery, particularly when servicemembers require custom or nonstandard-size 

equipment. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department to 

prioritize testing, contracting, procuring, and fielding new PPE-particularly with regard to appropriate sizes for women 

servicemembers—to ensure operational readiness and safety, which 

will enhance performance, lethality, and combat readiness while 

improving gender integration across the Services. The Secretary 

should in turn encourage the Services to pay particular attention 

to women-specific body armor, helmets—including those used by 

tankers and pilots—and coveralls in sizes that fit women mechanics, tankers, and pilots. Additionally, the committee encourages the 

Services to make available lightweight, adjustable, and modular 

ruck frames being used by the Marine Corps but not available in 

other Services. Lastly, the committee believes that the Department 

should ensure that all equipment is sourced in quantities that 

allow them to be issued at initial training and used during deployment. 

(151) 

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 2020, as shown below: 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

Authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 487,500 480,000 480,000 0 ¥7,500 

Navy ........................................................................... 335,400 340,500 340,500 0 +5,100 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 186,100 186,200 186,200 0 +100 

Air Force .................................................................... 329,100 332,800 332,800 0 +3,700 

DOD Total ......................................................... 1,338,100 1,339,500 1,339,500 0 +1,400 

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 2020, as shown below: 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 343,500 336,000 336,000 0 ¥7,500 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 199,500 189,500 189,500 0 ¥10,000 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 59,100 59,000 59,000 0 ¥100 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 107,100 107,700 107,700 0 600 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 70,000 70,100 70,100 0 100 

DOD Total ......................................................... 817,700 800,800 800,800 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 2020, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 30,595 30,595 30,595 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,386 16,511 16,511 0 125 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 10,110 10,155 10,155 0 45 

152 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

Authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,386 2,386 0 125 

Air National Guard .................................................... 19,861 22,637 22,637 0 2,776 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 3,849 4,431 4,431 0 582 

DOD Total ......................................................... 83,062 86,715 86,715 0 3,653 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the 

Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2020, as shown below: 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 22,294 22,294 22,294 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 6,492 6,492 6,492 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 15,861 13,569 13,569 0 ¥2,292 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 8,880 8,938 8,938 0 58 

DOD Total ......................................................... 53,527 51,293 51,293 0 ¥2,234 

The provision would prohibit under any circumstances the coercion of a military technician (dual status) by a State into accepting 

an offer of realignment or conversion to any other military status, 

including as a member of the Active, Guard, and Reserve program 

of a reserve component. The provision would further specify that if 

a technician declines to participate in such a realignment or conversion, no further action may be taken against the individual or 

the individual’s position. The provision would require the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to certify by January 1, 2020, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives the number of positions realigned from military technician (dual status) to a position in the Active, Guard, and Reserve 

(AGR) program of the Air National Guard during fiscal year 2019. 

Finally, the provision would specify that if the number so certified 

is less than 3,190, that the authorized strength for Air National 

Guard military technicians be increased by the difference between 

the number certified and 3,190 (with a maximum increase of 2,292) 

and that authorized AGR strength for the Air National Guard be 

decreased by that same amount. 

The committee is concerned that the Air National Guard did not 

properly validate its requirements under its realignment initiative, 

relying instead on a wishlist from the States rather than a rigorous 

and analytical process to determine what positions should be realigned, could be realigned, and what should remain technician. 

While the committee tentatively supports the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2020, subject to the adjustment mechanism 

provided in the provision, the committee reserves the right to reassess this authorization as the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2020 moves through the legislative process, based 

on the reporting requirements set forth below. 

153 

The committee directs the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

to provide to the committee quarterly reports on the number of positions that have been realigned from technician to AGR, by state, 

occupational specialty, and grade, beginning immediately with data 

available for fiscal year 2019 and continuing quarterly through 

May 1, 2021. 

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, 2020, as shown below: 

Service FY 2019 

Authorized 

FY 2020 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2020 

Request 

FY 2019 

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 

Authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserves on active 

duty (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12011(a)(1) and section 12012(a) of title 10, United States 

Code, by adjusting the controlled grade caps for field grade officers 

and senior enlisted marines to account for increased end strength 

in the Marine Corps Active Reserve Program. The provision would 

also expand the field grade officer and senior enlisted strength tables to allow for future end strength increases. 

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. 

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 ................................................... ¥918.98 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥918.98 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Per- sonnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $918.98 million. This amount 

includes: (1) A reduction of $918.98 million to reflect the GovernVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
154 

ment Accountability Office’s most recent assessment of average annual MILPERS under execution. 

(155) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

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 

authorize annually the number of officers serving on Active Duty 

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 take effect 

in fiscal year 2021 and 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 is rarely updated and it is no longer linked to strategy or actual officer requirements. 

As of the end of fiscal year 2018, each service is largely unaffected by the limitations imposed by the strength table. For example, the Army finished fiscal year 2018 at approximately 78 percent 

of its authorization for officers serving in the grade of major. Majors in the Air Force and Marine Corps were respectively at 94 percent and 89 percent of authorized levels. The Navy finished fiscal 

year 2018 at 89 percent of authorized levels in the grade of lieutenant commander. While each service operates more closely to the 

strength table limit for progressively higher grades (e.g., the Army 

was manned at approximately 86 percent of authorized lieutenant 

colonel end strength), the table does not effectively limit the Services in the manner envisioned by the original DOPMA legislation. 

The committee authorizes annual end strength levels for the 

overall active and reserve components 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 annually to justify required 

mid-grade officer manpower needs to support an annual authorization from Congress. This provision would provide greater flexibility 

to the military, while also ensuring Congress continues to perform 

its vital oversight role in ensuring the officer corps is effectively 

managed. 

156 

The provision would not take effect until fiscal year 2021, which 

would provide the Department of Defense the amount of time necessary to include an officer end strength request in the fiscal year 

2021 budget request. 

Maker of original appointments in a regular or reserve component of commissioned officers previously subject to 

original appointment in other type of component (sec. 

502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 531 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to make regular officer transfer appointments onto the 

Active-Duty list for reserve officers currently included on the reserve active-status list. 

The provision would also amend section 12203 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to make reserve 

officer transfer appointments onto the reserve active-status list for 

regular officers currently included on the Active-Duty list. The provision would also deem an officer who receives an original appointment as a regular commissioned officer in a grade under section 

531 of title 10, United States Code, to have also received an original appointment as a reserve officer. 

The committee notes that each of the military departments has 

expressed a desire to expedite the transfer of officers between the 

active and reserve components. One hurdle in the current transfer 

process is the requirement for separate appointments into each 

component. This requirement sometimes results in a break-in-service for officers who are attempting to transfer from the active component into the reserve component, which can adversely affect a 

servicemember’s pay and benefits. Additionally, the delay experienced by many officers as a result of the current transfer process 

sometimes discourages officers from transitioning into a different 

component. 

Of particular importance is retaining regular officers as they 

transition off of Active Duty. As a practical matter, the Services 

have only one opportunity to retain an officer as a member of a reserve component. It is rare for an officer to return to the reserve 

component after fully separating from the military. Therefore, the 

committee believes that removing barriers that unnecessarily delay 

the active-to-reserve transfer process is an important step in retaining well-trained officer personnel. 

Furnishing of adverse information on officers to promotion 

selection boards (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 615 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the grades of 

officers for which credible information of an adverse nature must 

be furnished to a promotion selection board. In addition, the provision would require that credible information of an adverse nature 

be furnished to a promotion selection board and its members at 

each stage or phase of the board, concurrent with the screening, 

rating, assessment, evaluation, discussion, or other consideration of 

the officer or of the officer’s official military personnel file. 

157 

Limitation on number of officers recommendable for promotion by promotion selection boards (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the number of officers who may be recommended for promotion by a promotion selection board to no more than 95 percent of officers who are in a given 

promotion zone. 

Expansion of authority for continuation on active duty of 

officers in certain military specialties and career tracks 

(sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would correct a 

technical oversight in section 506 of the John S. McCain National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115– 

232) by amending section 637a of title 10, United States Code, to 

authorize each of the Secretaries of the military departments to 

continue certain officers serving in the pay grades of O–3 and O– 

4 in an occupational specialty, rating, or specialty code, as designated by the relevant secretary, who are not yet retirement eligible but would otherwise be subject to statutory separation to complete up to 40 years of active service. 

Higher grade in retirement for officers following reopening 

of determination or certification of retired grade (sec. 

506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to require that any increase in the retired grade of an officer resulting from the reopening of the determination or certification of that officer’s retired 

grade be made by the Secretary of Defense, by and with the advice 

and consent of the Senate. Any associated modification of the officer’s retired pay would go into effect on the effective date of the increase in the officer’s retired grade and would not be retroactive to 

the date of the officer’s retirement. The provision would apply to 

any increase in retired grade that occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act, regardless of when the officer retired. 

Availability on the Internet of certain information about officers serving in general or flag officer grades (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

of the Secretaries of the military departments to make available on 

a public website certain biographical, assignment-related information about the relevant military department’s general and flag officers, including public notice when a general or flag officer has been 

reassigned to a new duty position. Each secretary may decline to 

publish such information only for reasons of risk to the individual 

officer or to national security and only after informing the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives in writing. 

158 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Repeal of requirement for review of certain Army Reserve 

officer unit vacancy promotions by commanders of associated active duty units (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1113 of the Army National Guard Combat Readiness Reform Act 

of 1992, which was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484). This section required the review of a recommended unit vacancy promotion of an 

officer in the Selected Reserve by the commander of the ActiveDuty unit associated with the Selected Reserve unit of that officer. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Modification of authorities on management of deployments 

of members of the Armed Forces and related unit operating and personnel tempo matters (sec. 515) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 991 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the ability of the 

Secretary of Defense to delegate deployment threshold exceptions 

to Senate-confirmed civilian officials within the Department of Defense. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe a separate policy to track dwell time for reserve members 

of the Armed Forces. 

Repeal of requirement that parental leave be taken in one 

increment (sec. 516) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the requirement 

that military leave taken in connection with the birth or adoption 

of a child be taken only in one increment. 

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 517) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

policy of the Department of Defense to promote and maintain digital engineering as a core competency of the civilian and military 

workforces of the Department. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint a civilian official of the Department of 

Defense, at a level no lower than assistant secretary of defense, for 

the development and discharge of the policy. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an implementation 

plan to the congressional defense committees not later than June 

1, 2020. 

Modification of notification on manning of afloat naval 

forces (sec. 518) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 525 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to make technical 

changes to congressional notifications germane to the manning of 

afloat naval forces. 

159 

Report on expansion of the Close Airman Support team approach of the Air Force to the other Armed Forces (sec. 

519) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretaries of the military departments to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a joint report on the feasibility and advisability of expanding 

the Close Airman Support team approach employed by the Air 

Force for use by the other Armed Forces. 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Related Matters 

Part I—Matters Relating to Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault Generally 

Department of Defense-wide policy and military department-specific programs on reinvigoration of the prevention of sexual assault involving members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to promulgate a comprehensive policy to reinvigorate the prevention of sexual assault among members of the 

Armed Forces, within 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

The provision would require in the comprehensive policy inclusion of programs that: (1) Provide education and training on the 

prevention of sexual assault; (2) Promote healthy relationships; (3) 

Are designed to empower and enhance the role of non-commissioned officers in the prevention of sexual assault; (4) Foster social 

courage to promote interventions to prevent sexual assault; (5) Address behaviors across the continuum of harm; (6) Counter alcohol 

abuse, including binge drinking; and (7) Encompass such other 

matters as the Secretary of Defense deems appropriate. 

Enactment and expansion of policy on withholding of initial 

disposition authority for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would vest only in 

a commissioned officer in a grade not below 0–6, who is authorized 

to convene special courts-martial, the authority to determine the 

disposition of specified offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code). 

The provision would establish that, when the victim of any such 

offense is in a different chain of command than the subject, only 

an officer of like grade with special court-martial convening authority in the chain of command of the victim may determine the disposition of offenses in connection with the victim’s alleged misconduct arising out of the incident. 

The permissible dispositions determinations that may be rendered by such an officer include: (1) No action; (2) Administrative 

action; (3) Imposition of non-judicial punishment; (4) Preferral of 

charges; (5) Dismissal or referral of charges to court-martial for 

trial if charges were preferred by a subordinate; or (6) Forwarding 

the charges to a superior or subordinate authority for further disposition. 

160 

Generally, if an officer’s disposition determination differs from 

the recommendation made by the officer’s legal advisor, the matter 

will be referred to a Special Victim Prosecutor, Senior Trial Counsel, or Regional Trial Counsel not in the chain of command of the 

officer making the initial disposition determination for review and 

recommendation to a staff judge advocate in the chain of command. 

That staff judge advocate would advise the next superior commander, who will decide whether to endorse or supersede the initial disposition determination. 

The training provided to commissioned officers in the grades of 

0–6 and above on the exercise of such disposition determination authority must include specific training on sexual harassment, sexual 

assault, and family abuse and domestic violence, as the Secretary 

of Defense deems appropriate, to inform such disposition determinations. 

Training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authorities 

on exercise of disposition authority for sexual assault 

and collateral offenses (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require comprehensive training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authorities, as defined by the April 20, 2012, Secretary of Defense memorandum, ‘‘Withholding Initial Disposition Authority Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases,’’ on 

the exercise of their authorities in such cases, with a view to enhancing the capabilities of such authorities and promoting trust 

and confidence in the military justice system. 

Expansion of responsibilities of commanders for victims of 

sexual assault committed by another member of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

commander of a member of the Armed Forces who is the victim of 

a sexual assault by another member of the Armed Forces to provide notification to the victim of every significant event associated 

with the investigation and prosecution of the sexual assault and, 

as applicable, to the confinement of the offender. Commanders 

would not be required to provide such notifications to a victim who 

elects not to receive them. Commanders would be charged to document any notifications provided to a victim as well as any election 

by a victim not to receive notifications. 

Further, were an alleged offender subject to prosecution by both 

court-martial and Federal or State civilian court, the provision 

would require the commander to create and maintain documentation of the victim’s preference as to the forum in which the alleged 

offender should be prosecuted. 

Training for commanders in the Armed Forces on their role 

in all stages of military justice in connection with sexual 

assault (sec. 525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require training provided to all military commanders to include comprehensive 

training on the role of a commander: (1) In all stages of the military justice process in connection with sexual assault committed by 

161 

a member of the Armed Forces, including investigation and prosecution; (2) In ensuring that a victim of sexual assault is informed 

of, and has the opportunity to obtain, the assistance available by 

law; (3) In ensuring that the victim is afforded all due process 

rights and protections authorized under law; (4) In preventing retaliation; (5) In establishing and maintaining a healthy command 

climate; and (6) In any other matters in connection with sexual assault deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Defense. 

The provision would further require that the training provided to 

commanders incorporate best practices in all matters covered. 

These best practices should be identified and brought current 

through periodic surveys and reviews. 

Notice to victims of alleged sexual assault of pendency of 

further administrative action following a determination 

not to refer to trial by court-martial (sec. 526) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to require a commander who determines not to refer a case of alleged sexual assault for trial by court-martial to provide the victim with notification, no less frequently than monthly, of the status of any further 

action in the case, including non-judicial punishment, administrative action, or no action, until a final determination of such further 

action is made. 

Safe to report policy applicable across the Armed Forces 

(sec. 527) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe a Safe to Report policy applicable 

to all members of the Armed Forces, across both active and reserve 

components, and to cadets and midshipmen at the military service 

academies. A Safe to Report policy is one in which a victim of sexual assault who may have committed minor collateral misconduct 

at or about the time of the assault or whose minor collateral misconduct is discovered only as the result of the investigation of the 

sexual assault may report the assault to authorities without fear 

of discipline, except in cases in which aggravating circumstances 

increase the gravity of the minor collateral misconduct or its impact on military good order and discipline. 

The provision would define minor collateral misconduct as including: (1) Improper use and possession of alcohol; (2) Consensual 

intimate behavior, including adultery or fraternization; (3) Presence in off-limits areas; and (4) Other misconduct specified in the 

regulations promulgated. 

The provision would further require that the regulations promulgated by the Secretary specify the aggravating circumstances that 

would increase the gravity of minor collateral misconduct or its impact on good order and discipline. 

Report on expansion of Air Force safe to report policy 

across the Armed Forces (sec. 528) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the 

military departments and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to 

162 

submit a report assessing the feasibility and advisability of applying across the Armed Forces, the Safe to Report policy currently 

applicable only in the Air Force to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 

days of the enactment of this Act. 

The Safe to Report policy currently in effect in the Air Force provides that a member of the Armed Forces who is a victim of a sexual assault committed by another member of the Armed Forces but 

who may have committed minor collateral misconduct at or about 

the time of the sexual assault or whose minor collateral misconduct 

is discovered only as a result of the investigation of the sexual assault may report the assault to authorities without fear or receipt 

of discipline in connection with that minor collateral misconduct. 

Proposal for separate punitive article in the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice on sexual harassment (sec. 529) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth legislative and administrative 

actions required to establish a punitive article on sexual harassment in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The report would be 

required to be submitted within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Treatment of information in Catch a Serial Offender Program for certain purposes (sec. 530) 

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude reports filed with the Catch a Serial Offender Program from application of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 

Further, the provision would make plain that transmittal or receipt of a restricted report of sexual assault to or by the Catch a 

Serial Offender Program would not terminate the report’s treatment or status as restricted. 

Report on preservation of recourse to restricted report on 

sexual assault for victims of sexual assault following 

certain victim or third-party communications (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 

feasibility and advisability of a Department of Defense policy that 

would permit a victim of a sexual assault, when the victim is a 

member of the Armed Forces or an adult dependent of such a member, to have a report of the assault made by the victim to a member 

of the Armed Forces in the victim’s or victim’s sponsor’s chain of 

command, or to military law enforcement, treated as a restricted 

report. A report on the assault made by any individual other than 

the victim would be similarly treated. In preparing the report, 

which would be due not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary would be required to consult 

with the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces. 

163 

Authority for return of personal property to victims of sexual assault who file a Restricted Report before conclusion of related proceedings (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 112–81) to require the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe procedures under which a victim of sexual assault who 

files a restricted report may, at any time and on a confidential 

basis, request the return of the victim’s personal property obtained 

as part of the sexual assault forensic examination. Any such request on the part of the victim would not affect the restricted nature of the victim’s report of sexual assault. The provision would 

also require a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator or Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate to inform the victim of his or her right to request the return of personal property 

under these procedures but also that any such return might negatively affect a subsequent adjudication of the case, should the victim later decide to convert the restricted report to an unrestricted 

report. The provision would not affect the requirement to retain a 

sexual assault forensic examination kit for the period required in 

law. 

Extension of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 546(f)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) to extend the term of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces by 5 years. 

Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual 

Misconduct (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain within the Department of Defense a Defense Advisory Committee on the Prevention 

of Sexual Misconduct. The Advisory Committee would be established not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act and 

would comprise of not fewer than 20 members, including persons 

with expertise in the prevention of sexual assault and behaviors on 

the sexual assault continuum of harm, the prevention of suicide, 

and the change in culture of large organizations. The Advisory 

Committee would coordinate with the Defense Advisory Committee 

on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces on matters of joint interest and, not later than 

March 30 of each year, would submit an annual report on its activities to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives. 

164 

Independent reviews and assessments on race and ethnicity 

in the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual 

assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces to conduct a review 

and assessment of the race and ethnicity of servicemembers accused, charged, or convicted of certain sexual offenses. 

Report on mechanisms to enhance the integration and synchronization of activities of Special Victim Investigation 

and Prosecution personnel with activities of military 

criminal investigation organizations (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth proposals to enhance the integration and synchronization 

of Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution personnel with the 

activities of military criminal investigative organizations in investigations in which both may be involved, together with the legislative and administrative actions required to implement those proposals. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation by the Armed Forces of recent statutory requirements on sexual assault prevention and response 

in the military (sec. 537) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to study the Armed 

Forces’ implementation of statutory requirements on sexual assault 

prevention and response enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) and each 

succeeding National Defense Authorization Act through the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232). The provision also would require the Comptroller General to submit a report on this study to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

For each statutory requirement still in force, the report would include an assessment of: (1) Whether the requirement has been or 

is being implemented; (2) The actions taken by the Armed Forces 

to determine whether the actions taken pursuant to each requirement have proven effective in meeting the intended objective; and 

(3) Any other matters deemed appropriate. Finally, the provision 

would require the Comptroller General to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than May 1, 2020, one or more briefings on the status of the study, including any findings and recommendations generated by the study to date. 

165 

Part II—Special Victims’ Counsel Matters 

Legal assistance by Special Victims’ Counsel for victims of 

alleged domestic violence offenses (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretaries of the military departments to provide Special Victims’ 

Counsel services to certain military and military-affiliated civilian 

personnel who are the victims of an alleged domestic violence offense, if a given secretary determines that resources are available 

for this purpose without impairing capacity to provide such services 

to the victims of alleged sex-related offenses already authorized by 

law to receive them. The provision would also authorize a given 

secretary to extend the provision of Special Victims’ Counsel services, under the same terms and conditions, to certain civilian persons who are the victims of an alleged sex-related offense or alleged 

domestic violence offense but who are not currently authorized to 

receive such services. 

Other Special Victims’ Counsel matters (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

legal assistance authorized to be provided by Special Victims’ 

Counsel to include legal consultation and assistance in connection 

with an incident of retaliation, whether occurring before, during, or 

after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings. 

The provision would also codify the Special Victims’ Counsel’s 

duty to solicit the preference of a victim of an alleged sex-related 

offense as to whether the offense should be prosecuted by courtmartial or in a civilian court with jurisdiction over the offense and 

to advise appropriate military prosecutors of the victim’s preference. 

Finally, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, the provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, detailing the manner-including the additional personnel, resources, and training required-in which the Department 

of Defense would extend eligibility for Special Victims’ Counsel 

services to certain military and military-affiliated civilian victims 

of alleged domestic violence offenses and to certain other civilian 

victims of an alleged sex-related or domestic violence offenses, were 

expansion of the program to be authorized in law. 

Availability of Special Victims’ Counsel at military installations (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

in circumstances in which a Special Victims’ Counsel is not available at a military installation to provide services to a member of 

the Armed Forces who requests such a Counsel, such a Counsel be 

made available not later than 72 hours after the member’s request. 

Further, the provision would require each of the Secretaries of 

the military departments to submit to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 

assessing the feasibility and advisability of establishing for each 

Special Victims’ Counsel, one or more civilian positions to support 

the Counsel and to ensure continuity and the preservation of instiVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
166 

tutional knowledge related to the provision of Special Victims’ 

Counsel services. The report would be submitted not later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act. 

Training for Special Victims’ Counsel on civilian criminal 

justice matters in the States of the military installations 

to which assigned (sec. 544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

on the assignment of a Special Victims’ Counsel (including a Victim 

Legal Counsel of the Navy) to a military installation in the United 

States, such Counsel will be provided appropriate training on the 

law and policies governing criminal justice matters in the State or 

States in which the military installation is located. Such training 

would include: (1) Victim rights; (2) Protective orders; (3) Prosecution of criminal offenses; and (4) Sentencing for conviction of a 

criminal offense. 

Part III—Boards for Correction of Military Records and 

Discharge Review Board Matters 

Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or requests for review of discharge or dismissal from the 

Armed Forces (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

15-year statute of limitations on requests by or on behalf of a 

former servicemember for review by a discharge review board of 

the member’s discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces. 

Reduction in required number of members of discharge review boards (sec. 547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the minimum 

number of members comprising a Discharge Review Board from 

five to three. 

Enhancement of personnel on boards for the correction of 

military records and discharge review boards (sec. 548) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

types of healthcare professionals whose provision of medical evidence or diagnosis that a current or former servicemember is or 

has experienced post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or another mental health disorder must be accorded consideration by a board for the correction of military records or discharge 

review board in the matter of such an applicant to include social 

workers with training on mental health issues connected with posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other trauma 

as well as psychologists, psychiatrists, or other specially-trained 

physicians, as currently permitted in law. 

Further, the provision would expand the types of health care professionals authorized to render a medical advisory opinion to a 

board for the correction of military records or to be a member of 

a discharge review board considering the application of such a servicemember to include social workers with training on mental health 

issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic 

167 

brain injury, or other trauma as well as psychologists, psychiatrists, or other specially-trained physicians, as currently permitted 

in law. 

Inclusion of intimate partner violence and spousal abuse 

among supporting rationales for certain claims for corrections of military records and discharge review (sec. 

549) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

types of cases in which boards for the correction of military records 

and discharge review boards must accord liberal consideration to 

the evidence presented by the servicemember or former servicemember in support of an application to the board and/or grant expedited consideration of such an application to include cases in 

which post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury related to sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, spousal abuse, 

or combat serves as all or part of the justification for the member 

or former member’s request for relief. 

Advice and counsel of trauma experts in review by boards 

for correction of military records and discharge review 

boards of certain claims (sec. 550) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

board for the correction of military records or a discharge review 

board reviewing a case in which a current or former 

servicemember’s request for relief is based on post-traumatic stress 

disorder or traumatic brain injury to seek advice and counsel from 

a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker with training on mental health issues associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, 

traumatic brain injury, or other trauma. 

The provision would further require that, if the member or 

former member applicant claims sexual trauma, intimate partner 

violence, or spousal abuse, the board seek advice and counsel from 

an expert in trauma specific to sexual assault, intimate partner violence, or spousal abuse. 

Training of members of boards for correction of military 

records and discharge review boards on sexual trauma, 

intimate partner violence, spousal abuse, and related 

matters (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the curriculum of training for members of boards for the correction 

of military records and discharge review boards include training in 

sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, spousal abuse, and the 

various responses of individuals to trauma. 

Further, the provision would require that, to the extent practicable, any such training be uniform across the Armed Forces. 

168 

Limitations and requirements in connection with separations for members of the Armed Forces who suffer from 

mental health conditions in connection with a sex-related, intimate partner violence-related, or spousal 

abuse-related offense (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

before a member of the Armed Forces—who was the victim of a 

sex-related, intimate partner violence-related, or spousal abuse-related offense during the period of the member’s military service 

and who has a mental health condition not amounting to a disability—is separated, discharged, or released from military service 

based on that condition, the diagnosis of the condition must be both 

corroborated by a competent mental health care professional at or 

above the level of the healthcare professional rendering the diagnosis and endorsed by the Surgeon General of the military department concerned. 

This provision would apply to all separations, discharges, and releases from the Armed Forces that occur on or after the date that 

is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Liberal consideration of evidence in certain claims by 

boards for the correction of military records and discharge review boards (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require military department boards for the correction of military records and 

discharge review boards to review all claims relating to a claimant’s discharge or dismissal, or the characterization of that discharge or dismissal, with liberal consideration of all evidence and 

information presented by or on behalf of the former servicemember. 

Part IV—Other Military Justice Matters 

Expansion of pre-referral matters reviewable by military 

judges and military magistrates in the interest of efficiency in military justice (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend article 

30a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 830a) to require the President to prescribe regulations governing proceedings 

related to an expanded set of matters that would be authorized to 

be conducted by military judges and military magistrates prior to 

the referral of court-martial charges. Such expanded matters would 

include the pre-trial confinement of, mental capacity of, or responsibility of an accused and an accused’s request for individual military counsel. 

Policies and procedures on registration at military installations of civilian protective orders applicable to members 

of the Armed Forces assigned to such installations and 

certain other individuals (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish policies and procedures for the 

registration at military installations of any civilian protective order 

issued against: (1) A member of the Armed Forces assigned to the 

installation; (2) A civilian employee employed at the installation; or 

169 

(3) A spouse or intimate partner of a member of the Armed Forces 

on Active Duty assigned to the installation or of a civilian employee 

employed at the installation. 

The provision would specify that the policies and procedures established by the Secretary must include a requirement for notice 

between and among the commander, installation military law enforcement elements, and military criminal investigative elements, 

whenever such a civilian protective order is registered. The provision would require that a failure to register a civilian protective 

order may not be offered as justification for a lack of enforcement 

of the order by military law enforcement and other personnel who 

have knowledge of it. 

Further, the provision would require that, as soon as practicable 

after establishing the requisite policies and procedures, the Secretary of Defense submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a letter describing 

those policies and procedures and certifying that they have been 

implemented on each military installation. 

Increase in number of digital forensic examiners for the 

military criminal investigation organizations (sec. 557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

of the Secretaries of the military departments to increase the number of digital forensic examiners in each military criminal investigative organization (MCIO) under that secretary’s jurisdiction by 

not fewer than 10 examiners above the baseline number of digital 

forensic examiners in each MCIO as of September 30, 2019. 

Survey of members of the Armed Forces on their experiences with military investigations and military justice 

(sec. 558) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a periodic survey—at least once 

every 4 years but not more frequently than once every 2 years— 

to be known as the Military Investigation and Justice Experience 

Survey, on the experience of members of the Armed Forces with 

military investigations and military justice. Those surveyed would 

include members of the Armed Forces who are victims of an alleged 

sex-related offense and who made an unrestricted report of that offense. Participants would be surveyed on their experience with a 

Special Victims’ Counsel and, if charges in the victim’s case were 

referred to court-martial, with the prosecutor and the court-martial 

in general. 

Public access to dockets, filings, and court records of 

courts-martial and other records of trial of the military 

justice system (sec. 559) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 940a) 

to clarify that the Secretary of Defense must act in coordination 

with the Secretary of Homeland Security to apply to the United 

States Coast Guard the uniform standards and criteria governing 

the administration of the military justice system, including those 

associated with: (1) The collection and analysis of data; (2) Case 

170 

processing and management; (3) Timely, efficient, and accurate 

production and distribution of records of trial; and (4) Facilitating 

public access to docket information, filings, and records of courtmartial proceedings. The provision would also clarify that the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) would not apply to court-martial records 

of trial or to docket information, filings, and records made accessible to the public as prescribed. As practicable, public access to 

personally identifiable information of minors and victims of crime, 

including victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, would be 

redacted, however. Finally, the provision would affirm that its public access requirement would not apply to court-martial docket information, filings, or records that are classified, subject to a judicial 

protective order, or ordered sealed. 

Pilot programs on defense investigators in the military justice system (sec. 560) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

of the Secretaries of the military departments to execute a pilot 

program to determine whether the presence and utilization of defense investigators makes the military justice system more fair and 

efficient and more effective in determining the truth. Defense investigators engaged in each secretary’s pilot shall participate in the 

military justice system in a manner similar to that in which defense investigators participate in civilian criminal justice systems, 

and the personnel and activities of pilot program defense investigators should be uniform across all military departments, to the extent practicable. 

The provision would specify that a defense investigator participating in the pilot may question a victim only upon a request made 

through a Special Victims’ Counsel or other counsel of the victim 

or the trial counsel. 

Further, the provision would require that, not later than 3 years 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives a consolidated report on the defense investigator pilot program with an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of establishing and maintaining defense investigators as a permanent element of the military justice system. 

Report on military justice system involving alternative authority for determining whether to prefer or refer 

charges for felony offense under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the results of a study on the feasibility and advisability 

of an alternative military justice system in which determinations 

to prefer or refer charges for trial by court-martial offenses for 

which the maximum punishment includes confinement for more 

than one year under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 

47 of title 10, United States Code) would be made by a judge advocate officer in a grade of 0–6 or higher, who has significant experience in criminal litigation and is outside the chain of command of 

171 

the member of the Armed Forces who is the subject of the charges, 

rather than by a commanding officer in the subject’s chain of command. The report would further assess the feasibility and advisability of conducting a pilot program to assess any such alternative 

military justice system and would be required to be submitted not 

later than 300 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Report on standardization among the military departments 

in collection and presentation of information on matters 

within the military justice system (sec. 562) 

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, 

describing plans to standardize across the military departments, to 

the extent practicable, the collection and presentation of matters 

within their military justice systems, including information collected and maintained to facilitate public access to court-martial 

docket information, filings, and records and for other purposes set 

forth in article 140 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 

U.S.C. 940a). In particular, the provision would require the Secretary to assess the feasibility and advisability of establishing and 

maintaining a single, Department of Defense-wide military justice 

data management system. The report would be submitted not later 

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Report on establishment of guardian ad litem program for 

certain military dependents who are victim or witness 

of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

involving abuse or exploitation (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 

feasibility and advisability of establishing a guardian ad litem program for military dependents, under 12 years of age or who lack 

mental or other capacity, who are victims or witnesses to an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 of 

title 10, United States Code) that involves an element of abuse or 

exploitation. Should the Secretary determine that establishment of 

such a program is feasible and advisable, the report must include 

a description of: (1) The administrative requirements, including resources, required for the program; (2) Best practices, determined in 

consultation with civilian experts on child advocacy; and (3) Recommendations for legislative and administrative action required to 

implement the program. The report would be required to be submitted not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

172 

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. 566) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to require that an ActiveDuty 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. 

Authority for detail of certain enlisted members of the 

Armed Forces as students at law schools (sec. 567) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 2004 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the detail of 

certain enlisted members, as well as officers as authorized by current law, as students at law schools for a period of training leading 

to a juris doctor degree. The provision would limit the number of 

enlisted persons and officers so detailed to 25 per year and would 

retain the requirement for the competitive selection of detailees. To 

qualify for such detail, an enlisted person must: (1) Have served on 

Active Duty for not less than 4 and nor more than 8 years; (2) Be 

in the pay grade E–5, E–6, or E–7 as of the time law school training begins; (3) Meet all requirements for acceptance of a commission as a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces; (4) Agree to 

accept transfer to be a judge advocate, upon completion of law 

school; and (5) Agree to serve on Active Duty for a period of 2 years 

for each year or partial year of legal training received. 

Connections of members retiring or separating from the 

Armed Forces with community-based organizations and 

related entities (sec. 568) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to enter jointly into a 

memorandum of understanding or other agreements with State 

veterans agencies to transmit information from Department of Defense form DD–2648 on individuals undergoing retirement, discharge, or release from the Armed Forces, if elected by such individuals, to provide or connect veterans to benefits or services. 

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. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $40.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for conVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
173 

tinuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies impacted by enrollment of dependent 

children of military members and DOD civilian employees. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$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 section 343 formula. 

Ri’katak Guest Student Program at United States Army Garrison-Kwajalein Atoll (sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to conduct an assistance program to educate 

up to five local national students per grade, per academic year, on 

a space-available basis at the contractor-operated schools on United 

States Army Garrison-Kwajalein Atoll. Under this provision, the 

Secretary would be authorized to provide: (1) Classroom instruction; (2) Extracurricular activities; (3) Student meals; and (4) 

Transportation. 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters 

Two-year extension of authority for reimbursement for 

State licensure and certification costs of spouses of 

members of the Armed Forces arising from relocation to 

another State (sec. 576) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 476(p)(4) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority for reimbursement of state licensure and certification costs of 

military spouses arising from relocation to another State to December 31, 2024, due to the delayed implementation of this authority. 

Improvement of occupational license portability for military 

spouses through interstate compacts (sec. 577) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1784 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Council 

of State Governments to assist with the funding and development 

of interstate compacts on licensed occupations. 

The committee understands that the lack of portability of employment licenses and credentials across State lines hinders military spouse employment. According to the most recent survey data, 

in 2018, 30 percent of military spouses were unemployed and actively seeking work, and approximately 34 percent of working miliVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
174 

tary spouses require an occupational license for their work. Occupational licenses and credentials often have State-specific conditions and processes, causing lengthy employment and re-employment delays and high costs for military spouses moving between 

States. 

Due to the delays and expense involved in re-licensure and recredentialing, many military spouses decide not to practice their 

chosen professions. This becomes a financial and career choice 

issue for military families, impacting servicemembers’ desire to 

stay in the military. This provision supports the process of developing State-based solutions to these issues, helping to alleviate the 

burdens military spouses face when moving to new locations in the 

country and impediments to their continued gainful employment. 

Modification of responsibility of the Office of Special Needs 

for individualized service plans for members of military 

families with special needs (sec. 578) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subparagraph (F) of section 1781(c)(d)(4) of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Department of Defense to develop an individualized service plan for military family members with special needs 

when requested in connection to the completion of a family needs 

assessment. 

Clarifying technical amendment on direct hire authority for 

the Department of Defense for childcare services providers for Department child development centers (sec. 

579) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify section 

559(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) by including family childcare coordinator 

services and school age childcare coordinator services. 

Pilot program on information sharing between Department 

of Defense and designated relatives and friends of members of the Armed Forces regarding the experiences and 

challenges of military service (sec. 580) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of the enactment 

of this Act, to enter into an agreement with the American Red 

Cross to conduct a pilot program to encourage members of the 

Armed Forces to designate up to 10 persons to whom certain information regarding the military service of each such member would 

be shared. The provision would require the Secretary, within 2 

years after the pilot program begins, to administer a survey to persons who elected to receive information under the program to receive feedback on the quality of the information they received. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to submit a final 

report on the pilot program to the congressional defense committees within 3 years after the program begins. 

175 

Briefing on use of Family Advocacy Programs to address domestic violence (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of Defense provide to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a briefing 

on the various mechanisms by which the Family Advocacy Programs of the military departments could be used and enhanced to 

end domestic violence among members of the Armed Forces and to 

support survivors of such violence and their dependents. 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to John J. 

Duffy for acts of valor in Vietnam (sec. 585) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

President, notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 

3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 

with respect to awarding certain medals to members of the Armed 

Forces, to award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of such 

title to John J. Duffy for acts of valor during the Vietnam War. 

Standardization of honorable service requirement for award 

of military decorations (sec. 586) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to standardize the requirement for honorable service for awards of medals, crosses, bars, and 

associated emblems. Currently, the requirements for honorable 

service for awards given in recognition of distinguished acts vary 

among the military departments, creating confusion and resulting 

in inequitable treatment of servicemembers. This provision would 

establish a single statutory standard that would provide parity in 

treatment of servicemembers across the Department of Defense. 

Authority to award or present a decoration not previously 

recommended in a timely fashion following a review requested by Congress (sec. 587) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1130 of title 10, United States Code, authorizing the Secretary 

of Defense to present an award or decoration following the favorable review of a proposal upon request of a Member of Congress. 

Authority to make posthumous and honorary promotions 

and appointments following a review requested by Congress (sec. 588) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1563 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to prescribe regulations to make a posthumous or honorary promotion following the submission to the requesting Member of Congress and to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives of a determination as to 

the merits of approving the posthumous or honorary promotion or 

appointment. The promotion or appointment would not affect reVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
176 

tired pay or other benefits based upon the individual’s military 

service. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Military funeral honors matters (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1491(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretaries of the military departments to provide full military honors 

for the funeral of a veteran who: (1) Is first interred or inurned in 

Arlington National Cemetery after the date of the enactment of 

this Act; (2) Was awarded the medal of honor or the prisoner-ofwar medal; and (3) Is not entitled to full military honors by the 

grade of that veteran. Additionally, the provision would require 

each commander of a relevant military installation to maintain and 

carry out a plan for the provision, upon request, of full military funeral honors at funerals for veterans for whom funeral honors details are authorized under section 1491 of title 10, United States 

Code. The provision would prescribe elements of the required 

plans, including the provision of a gun salute by either appropriate 

personnel of the installation, reserve component members, or members of veterans’ organizations or other organizations referred to in 

section 1491(b)(2) of such title. 

Inclusion of homeschooled students in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps units (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to require public secondary educational institutions that maintain a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps unit to permit membership in the unit of 

home-schooled students residing in the area served by the institution and who would otherwise be qualified for membership in the 

unit if they were enrolled in the institution. 

Sense of Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps (sec. 593) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. 

Items of Special Interest 

Active-Duty Service Commitment for Personnel Graduating 

Cybersecurity Courses 

The committee remains concerned about recruitment and retention of cybersecurity personnel. Of particular concern is retention 

of cybersecurity personnel with significant qualifications derived 

from the Department of Defense’s institutional training programs. 

Given the heavy demand for these personnel from both the private 

sector and the public sector outside of the uniformed services, the 

committee directs that, not later than February 1, 2020, the Department complete an analysis of the desirability of one or more 

Active-Duty service obligations for these personnel. This analysis 

should include an assessment of recruitment impacts. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional 

defense committees on the results of the analysis by March 1, 2020. 

177 

Active-Duty service obligations for military service academy 

graduates 

The committee notes that it has been over 20 years since initial 

Active-Duty service obligations for service academy graduates have 

been modified. Since that time, the real cost per graduate has increased by nearly 20 percent. Recent studies suggest service academy graduates have lower junior officer retention rates then other 

officer commissioning sources. Meanwhile, the increasingly technical nature of officer careers results in new officers’ spending less 

time at their first duty stations due to lengthier, more demanding, 

initial skills training courses. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to submit a report, no later than April 1, 2020, that answers the following questions: 

(1) How has the real cost per military service academy graduate changed since 1996; 

(2) How do service academy graduate retention rates compare to those of other commissioning sources after 

servicemembers’ initial Active Duty service obligation is complete; 

(3) What effect would an increase in the initial Active Duty 

service obligation for service academy graduates have on academy application rates; 

(4) How could service academies implement a policy that 

awards preference for admission to a service academy in exchange for an agreement to serve on Active Duty longer than 

the required amount of time; and 

(5) What other policies could the Services implement to ensure an adequate return on investment for a service academy 

graduate? 

Adequacy of childcare workforce and capacity across the 

Department of Defense 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Services are not adequately prioritizing the 

childcare needs of military families. There is demand for highly 

qualified childcare providers and increased child development center (CDC) capacity across the DOD. With 7,000 military family 

children requiring but not receiving childcare, the Services should 

further prioritize childcare to improve military family readiness. 

The committee understands that 68 percent of the childcare need 

across the DOD is clustered in four geographic regions—San Diego, 

the National Capital Region, Hawaii, and Norfolk. At some of these 

locations, there is an insufficient workforce available to staff CDCs. 

At other locations, there is a highly qualified workforce available; 

however, local military installations do not have the facility space 

to expand CDC capacity. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the CDCs in these four geographic regions and to submit a 

report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2020, that includes the following: (1) Data on CDC waitlists, workforce inadequacies, and facility capacities in each region; (2) Specific locations 

178 

where either CDC construction or public-private partnerships with 

private sector childcare providers would increase capacity; and (3) 

Monetary and non-monetary incentives that could be utilized to recruit and retain childcare providers at those CDCs. 

Air battle manager accessions 

The committee recognizes the important role that air battle managers have in establishing command and control in battlespace and 

ensuring that American and allied combat aircraft find, identify, 

and destroy their targets. The committee is concerned by the lack 

of air battle manager accessions over the last 5 years compared to 

what is recommended for a sustainable inventory. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives a briefing on current accession and 

retention rates for members of the Air Force assigned to the Air 

Force Specialty Code of Air Battle Manager by December 1, 2019. 

The briefing shall include: (1) A description and assessment of 

plans of the Air Force to meet Air Battle Manager requirements as 

provided by Headquarters of the Air Force guidance letters; and (2) 

A comparison of aviation retention bonus take rates for pilots 

versus air battle managers and an explanation of how current air 

battle manager retention bonus amounts were determined. 

Assessment and report on expanding the eligibility for the 

My Career Advancement Account program 

The committee shares the Department of Defense’s (DOD) commitment to military family readiness, part of which is improving 

military spouse education and employment opportunities. In the 

2018 Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey, 30 percent of military spouses reported they were unemployed and actively seeking work, while 56 percent of employed military spouses 

stated they were underemployed. When compared to the current 

national unemployment rate of 3.8 percent, it is clear military 

spouses experience greater impediments when seeking full-time 

employment than their civilian counterparts. 

The My Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program offers 

eligible military spouses, who are pursuing licenses, certifications, 

or associate’s degrees in portable career fields, financial assistance 

toward completing their studies. The program is currently open to 

spouses of certain junior servicemembers to jump-start their career 

paths. The committee was encouraged to see the RAND Corporation’s study on the MyCAA program, ‘‘An Early Evaluation of the 

My Career Advancement Account Scholarship for Military 

Spouses,’’ which found: (1) MyCAA program users were more likely 

to find employment; (2) MyCAA scholarships reach the intended 

population; and (3) MyCAA usage positively affects servicemember 

retention. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment and to report on the feasibility and advisability 

of expanding the MyCAA program. The assessment should include: 

(1) Analysis of a tailored expansion of program eligibility for military spouses, to include but not be limited to extending MyCAA financial assistance through the completion of users’ educational proVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
179 

grams; (2) Analysis on expanding scholarship eligibility to include 

vocational schools, professional licensure, and medical field clinical 

supervision hours; (3) Costs associated with categories identified 

for potential expansion; (4) Impact on the program if eligibility is 

expanded; (5) Suggestions for improved data collection, to include 

but not be limited to data on program completion after a military 

spouse transitions out of the eligibility window; and (6) A determination on whether or not expansion is feasible and advisable. 

The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2020. 

Basic training athletic shoe variant analysis for new recruits 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) required the Services to provide American-made athletic shoes at no cost to recruits 

to provide higher quality footwear and to reduce injuries during 

basic training. In order to accommodate different sizes and running 

styles, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded contracts for three 

different variants of athletic shoes. The committee is aware, however, that the Services vary on how they conduct assessments to 

determine the best shoe variant for each recruit. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Services to brief the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later 

than January 1, 2020, on the analysis or assessment provided to 

new recruits to determine the most appropriate shoe variant for 

them. This briefing shall include an assessment of whether exchange store retail clerks are trained to conduct a basic foot and 

gait analysis of recruits and to recommend the best shoe variant 

for recruits. 

Briefing on Staff Judge Advocates’ trial experience 

The committee notes that Article 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 834) requires that, before referral of charges 

and specifications to a general court-martial, the general courtmartial convening authority must submit the matter to his or her 

staff judge advocate. The staff judge advocate is required to provide 

written advice to the convening authority, including a recommendation as to disposition of the charges and specifications. 

The committee perceives that in order to provide the best advice 

on these matters, it is important that a staff judge advocate possess significant knowledge of and experience in the military justice 

system. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the military 

departments to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than December 6, 

2019, on the military justice experience required for assignment as 

a staff judge advocate in their respective services. As to the judge 

advocates assigned as a staff judge advocate in the military service(s) under the jurisdiction of such secretary at any time over the 

5 years preceding the date of the enactment of this Act, the report 

shall include the average time assigned to perform duties as a trial 

counsel, defense counsel, chief of military justice, chief of defense 

180 

services, or military judge and to other duties that contributed to 

the breadth and depth of the military justice knowledge and experience of the officer. 

Childcare Parity 

The committee is concerned about the lack of availability of 

childcare for Active-Duty servicemembers on military installations 

and the Services’ implementation of childcare eligibility priority 

lists, which dictate the order in which children are allocated available spaces in Department of Defense (DOD) childcare facilities. In 

those facilities, over 3,500 Active-Duty families appear on waiting 

lists for childcare, especially infant care. In DOD Instruction 

6060.02, the Department has established a priority list to ensure 

that children of Active-Duty servicemembers receive childcare before other eligible beneficiary categories. However, the children of 

DOD civilian employees often fill slots in DOD childcare facilities, 

even as Active-Duty servicemembers find themselves on waiting 

lists for many months. Additionally, DOD’s priority list does not 

sufficiently address the childcare needs of Active-Duty 

servicemembers who may be single, unmarried, separated, or divorced parents. 

The committee is aware that each of the Services treats single, 

unmarried, separated, or divorced parents differently regarding 

their priority for childcare. The committee believes that military 

family stability is an important pillar of military family readiness. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Department to: 

(1) Standardize the childcare eligibility policies of the Services to 

ensure that single, unmarried, separated, or divorced 

servicemembers receive the same opportunities as married 

servicemembers for childcare, regardless of the individual 

servicemember’s residency or geographic location; and (2) Ensure 

the Department prioritizes childcare for Active-Duty 

servicemembers over the childcare needs of DOD civilians. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to 

the committee, no later than February 1, 2020, on changes the 

DOD will make to ensure equity in the delivery of its childcare 

benefits. 

Command climate assessment in officer and enlisted appraisal reports 

Section 508 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) requires that that the performance appraisals of a commanding officer indicate the extent to which the commanding officer has or has not established a command climate in which allegations of sexual assault are properly managed and fairly evaluated 

and the extent to which a victim of criminal activity, including sexual assault, can report the criminal activity without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other members 

of the command. The committee believes that these are not ‘‘checkthe-block’’ requirements. They should be given serious consideration when evaluating these commanding officers and accurately 

reflected in performance appraisals. 

181 

The committee recognizes that the command climate of an organization is greatly influenced by officer and enlisted leadership of 

that organization. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretaries of the military departments to require that all officer and 

enlisted evaluations include a meaningful assessment of the rated 

officer or enlisted member’s contribution to a positive command climate. 

Comptroller General Study on Effectiveness of Student 

Loan Forgiveness Program on Readiness and Recruiting 

The committee recognizes the importance of the mission of the 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, authorized in 

section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 

89–329), to encourage more Americans to pursue careers serving 

their communities in critical jobs-including careers in military service and civilian careers at the Department of Defense. The committee further recognizes that a well-administered PSLF program 

allows members of the uniformed services with student loans to 

serve their country without spending decades repaying federal student loan debt and contributes to the successful recruitment and 

retention of highly qualified and educated recruits by eliminating 

a barrier to entry to military or civilian service. For the Services, 

this broadens the supply of eligible recruits, which, in the long 

term, can reduce recruiting and retention costs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and House of Representatives, not later than June 30, 

2020, a report assessing the effectiveness of the PSLF program at 

promoting military readiness and the effect of the PSLF program 

on military and civilian recruitment. The committee further directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to make any recommendations to strengthen military readiness and military and 

civilian recruitment the Comptroller General deems appropriate to 

the Congress and to the Secretary of Education regarding the implementation of the PSLF program. 

Concern over hunger and food security in military families 

Since 2000, the Congress has worked to ensure that military 

families, particularly those of lower ranking enlisted 

servicemembers, do not have to endure the painful reality of food 

insecurity. Various programs at the Federal, State, and Department of Defense levels have attempted to address this issue, yet 

the committee continues to hear reports that problems remain. 

The committee notes that the Quadrennial Review of Military 

Compensation, underway and expected to report next year, is assessing the adequacy of military compensation in order to obtain 

better demographic fidelity about the usage of benefits under the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by servicemembers. 

The committee urges the Department to give this issue a thorough 

review and to continue to work collaboratively with the Congress 

to further study the root causes of food insecurity and hunger in 

military families and develop lasting solutions in order to protect 

the families of those who protect the Nation. 

182 

Concurrent use of Montgomery G.I. Bill and Department of 

Defense-funded tuition assistance 

The benefits provided by the Montgomery G.I. Bill and Department of Defense-funded tuition assistance are valuable incentives 

that can help the military meet its recruiting and retention goals 

by providing financial means for servicemembers to complete college courses. The committee is aware that due to a Department of 

Defense (DOD) policy change to DOD Instruction 1322.25 in July 

2014, reserve component members receiving tuition assistance are 

no longer allowed to receive Montgomery G.I. Bill—Selected Reserve (MGIB–SR) benefits for the same college course. The committee is aware that tuition assistance is paid directly to schools 

and is authorized only for tuition while the MGIB–SR benefits are 

paid directly to servicemembers and may be used to cover education-related costs such as books, fees, and housing. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the DOD to re-evaluate this policy and 

strongly consider reinstating simultaneous use of tuition assistance 

and MGIB–SR for reserve component members. 

Department of Defense cooperation with United States 

Interagency Council on Homelessness 

The committee is aware that the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

(THUD) of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in the Senate report accompanying S. 2844 (S. Rept. 114–243) of the THUD Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2017, required that the United States 

Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) work with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to evaluate and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives on how the process of becoming a veteran can be improved to minimize veteran 

homelessness. The committee recently became aware that DOD’s 

cooperation with the USICH in this regard may have partially contributed to an unsatisfactory report. 

The committee believes that eliminating veteran homelessness 

must be a national effort that crosses executive agency jurisdictions. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that the DOD works with the USICH to report by October 1, 2019, 

to the Subcommittee on THUD and the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives on DOD’s 

progress in identifying transitioning servicemembers who may not 

have viable post-transition housing plans and on steps taken to ensure that each of those servicemembers receives a useful referral 

to the VA or the Department of Labor (DOL). Additionally, the 

committee directs the DOD to provide to USICH the following data 

for fiscal year 2018 and 2019: 

(1) The number and percentage of transitioning 

servicemembers evaluated regarding their post-transition housing plan; 

(2) The number and percentage of transitioning 

servicemembers identified as not having a viable post-transition housing plan; 

(3) The number and percentage of transitioning 

servicemembers identified as not having a viable post-transiVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
183 

tion housing plan and referred to the appropriate VA liaison; 

and 

(4) The number and percentage of transitioning 

servicemembers who are evaluated as not having a viable posttransition housing plan and referred to the appropriate DOL 

Liaison. 

Further, the committee directs the Secretary to provide data 

records to the VA and DOL that will enable those agencies to track 

actions and report outcomes associated with such referrals. 

Department of Defense credentialing 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

integrate an open registry of credentials and descriptive schema 

into existing Department of Defense (DOD) credentialing databases. The committee believes that the Department should provide 

better metrics and data on quality indicators and outcomes to include: (1) The extent to which credentials will improve a veteran’s 

ability to gain employment; (2) Which credentials are transferable 

across state lines; and (3) Locations and regions where certain credentials are in demand. Finally, the committee believes that these 

data could inform which programs are eligible for education benefits administered by the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Development of strategic basing factors to support military 

families 

The committee notes that on February 23, 2018, the Secretaries 

of the military departments sent a memorandum to the National 

Governors Association, expressing their intent to consider the quality of education in local schools and reciprocity of professional licensure for military spouses in future basing or mission alternative decisions. The committee applauds the Services for their efforts to address the needs of military families. Additionally, the committee salutes the Department of the Air Force for taking the lead in developing strategic basing factors to support military families while engaging community stakeholders for feedback relevant to K–12 education and military spouse license reciprocity. The committee encourages the Departments of the Army and Navy to work collaboratively with the Air Force on strategic basing factors to ensure 

military children receive a high quality education and to relieve 

military spouses of the burdens that come with re-licensure and recredentialing with every permanent change of station move. 

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed 

Forces 

The committee notes that, in June 2018, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering released a Digital Engineering Strategy that seeks to incorporate the use of digital computing, 

analytical capabilities, and new technologies to conduct engineering 

in more integrated model-based environments. The Department of 

Defense correctly notes that defense programs are becoming increasingly complex, as evidenced by the complex and continuously 

changing software and electronics needed to operate nearly every 

major platform fielded by the military. The responsibility to underVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
184 

stand, manage, and use these complex systems resides not just 

with the Department’s scientists and laboratories but is increasingly relevant to personnel on the battlefield and in every facet of 

military service. Accordingly, the committee believes that, as a general matter, the Department and the Services should consider promoting and maintaining digital engineering as a core competency 

of the Armed Forces and increasing the digital and technical skills 

of all servicemembers. The committee believes that the Department 

should consider the development, maintenance, and integration of 

increased capability among all members of the Armed Forces, in 

every branch and occupational specialty, in digital engineering and 

related digital competencies (including, but not limited to, data 

science, machine learning, software engineering, software product 

management, and user experience design). This effort should include the development and maintenance of training, education, talent management, incentives, and promotion policies in support of 

members at all levels. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

enter into an arrangement with an independent research organization or study board for an identification of policy options and costbenefit analysis of these options to strengthen digital engineering 

and related capabilities of the DOD civilian and military 

workforces. The report shall be delivered to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than July 1, 2020. 

Duty to intervene 

The committee notes that Department of Defense annual reports 

on sexual assault in the military have consistently concluded that 

sexual assaults are more likely to occur in units with a command 

climate that tolerates sexual harassment. The fiscal year 2018 report found that ‘‘women who experienced sexual harassment were 

at 3 times greater risk for sexual assault than average’’ and men 

who experienced sexual harassment were at 12 times greater risk 

for sexual assault than average. 

Current bystander intervention programs do not appear to be effective in reducing tolerance for sexual harassment and sexual assaults. Servicemember bystanders should have a duty to intervene 

when they observe conduct that constitutes sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment and sexual assault, or retaliation for reporting harassment and assault. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, not later than December 6, 

2019, on the feasibility of establishing a legally enforceable duty to 

intervene when a servicemember witnesses sexual misconduct. 

Encouraging victims of domestic violence and sex-related 

offenses to secure military and civilian protection orders 

The committee believes that a Military Protection Order (MPO) 

and a Civilian Protection Order (CPO), taken together, afford a victim of domestic violence or a sex-related offense the most comVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
185 

prehensive protection available under law from further abuse, assault, or harm. 

Further, the committee is aware that Federal law requires military commanders and installation law enforcement personnel to 

take all reasonable measures necessary to ensure that a CPO is 

given full force and effect on all Department of Defense (DOD) installations. But in order to enforce a CPO involving a military servicemember or other affiliated person, commanders, military law enforcement officers, and Family Advocacy Program personnel must 

know that such an order exists. Although DOD policy provides 

military commanders the option to establish procedures for registering CPOs on a DOD installation, few commanders have done 

so. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Family Advocacy Program, Special Victims’ Counsel Program, and other victim advocate 

programs of the DOD to provide victims in their care with advice 

and assistance in obtaining both an MPO and a CPO, as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the committee encourages all military commanders to establish procedures for registering and sharing CPOs with all appropriate installation personnel and programs, 

with a view toward ensuring victim safety through consistent, 

across-the-board awareness and enforcement of any such protective 

order. 

Enlistment and accession testing and standards for non-native English speaking recruits 

The committee is concerned about the shrinking pool of qualified 

recruits interested in military service. The all-volunteer force is 

now over 45 years old, and, while it has served the Nation well, 

its limits are being tested after 17 years of war. The challenge is 

most acute in military service recruitment efforts. The Services 

continue to pay more each year for fewer Active-Duty 

servicemembers. In November 2013, the Chief of Staff of the Army 

testified that the cost of an Army soldier had doubled since 2001 

and would double again by 2025. While the percentage of the Department of Defense’s total budget spent on military personnel has 

remained generally steady since 1980, at roughly one third, the 

cost of military personnel, in real dollars, has soared. It buys far 

less today than it did then. In 1980, the active component end 

strength of the Armed Forces was 2.1 million. The Department’s request for fiscal year 2020, the largest in history in budgetary 

terms, included 1.33 million Active-Duty servicemembers. The 

Army in particular has struggled, and it will miss its 2019 authorized strength by 8,000 soldiers. All of this results from having to 

pay more to attract qualified recruits in an ever shrinking pool of 

candidates. Portending a different, perhaps more serious, problem, 

those who do join are increasingly culled from a homogeneous pool 

of military-connected families that are not representative of the 

Nation as a whole. It is clear to the committee that money alone 

cannot solve this issue and that the Nation, as a matter of national 

security, must rethink how and who it recruits. 

The committee recently met with a number of the Army’s top recruiters to hear about their experiences and challenges in recruiting today and to explore what we might do differently. Among 

186 

many topics discussed, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 

Battery (ASVAB) was a particular source of frustration. While the 

ASVAB identifies qualified recruits, it leaves many would-be highly 

qualified recruits behind, specifically those who do not speak 

English as a native language. Due to the timed nature of the test 

and nuances of language, many non-native English speakers do not 

pass, even though their academic records in American high schools 

are strong. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the effectiveness of current enlistment testing practices, including the ASVAB, in identifying high-potential recruits for military service, specifically among the non-native English speaking 

population of the United States eligible to enlist, in light of evolving standards and methods in civilian education of measuring mental ability and academic potential. This review should analyze and 

take into account methods of measuring academic potential being 

used across local school districts in the United States to ensure 

that current testing methodologies used by the Department and the 

Services comport with best practices in the field and serve to identify to the fullest range possible those individuals who are likely to 

succeed in their terms of military service. The review shall include 

a survey of the latest research on academic achievement of non-native English speakers. The Department shall report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 

by no later than April 1, 2020, on the results of this review. The 

Secretary may utilize the services of outside, independent organizations, including federally funded research and development centers, 

as the Secretary determines appropriate, to access the expertise 

and research necessary to conduct this review. 

Expanding the Military Ballot Tracking Pilot to additional 

military voters and their families 

The committee commends the Department of Defense Federal 

Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) for its initiatives to counter the 

myth that absentee ballots cast by military members and their eligible family members are considered for tabulation and counted 

only in close elections. FVAP, in conjunction with the United States 

Postal Service, piloted two-way military ballot tracking for overseas 

military members during the 2016 general election. The Military 

Ballot Tracking Pilot (MBTP) allowed members of the military to 

track their ballots in the same way that consumers track commercial packages. The MBTP was successful—85 to 90 percent of all 

ballots were successfully delivered with end-to-end tracking—and 

surveys of servicemembers who voted with absentee ballots indicated significant satisfaction with being able to track their ballots. 

The committee believes that servicemembers and their families 

should be able to track their ballots from the time of mailing until 

they are received by election officials. The continuation of the 

MBTP will help to improve customer service and will facilitate the 

acquisition of valuable data that can be used to assess the overall 

reliability of military mail. 

The committee encourages the FVAP to continue and expand the 

MBTP to additional military voters and their eligible family members. The committee directs the Director, FVAP, to submit to the 

187 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the House Committee on Administration, not later than 

January 29, 2021, a report on the expanded MBTP. This report 

shall include: (1) The scope and cost of the expanded program; (2) 

The projected cost of extending this program to all eligible voters 

under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

(Public Law 99–410); (3) The organizations that provided the FVAP 

substantial support in conducting the pilot, a description of the 

support, and costs associated with that support; and (4) Recommendations on the process and steps necessary to expand the 

program to all eligible overseas members and their families. The 

committee also directs the Director, FVAP, to provide an interim 

briefing to the committees listed not later than February 3, 2020. 

Expansion of the Military Spouse Employment Partnership 

across the Department of Defense 

The Military Spouse Employment Partnership (MSEP), a program established by the Department of Defense (DOD), creates a 

strong network for military spouses and industry, providing companies and agencies with direct access to military spouses seeking career opportunities. The MSEP currently has more than 390 industry and government partners that have hired over 130,000 military 

spouses. However, the committee notes that only five DOD agencies partner with the MSEP to post employment opportunities for 

military spouses online-the Defense Commissary Agency, Defense 

POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Department of Defense Education 

Activity, Commander, Navy Installations Command-NAF, and Department of the Air Force. The committee recognizes the unique 

challenges military spouses face to maintain suitable employment 

with frequent moves between duty stations. Therefore, the committee encourages the DOD to expand MSEP Department-wide and 

to: (1) Streamline access for hiring managers across the Department to improve utilization and communication about military 

spouse hiring; (2) Ensure military spouses are made aware of all 

potential employment opportunities available to them as they undergo moves between duty stations; and (3) Ensure DOD prioritizes 

the training of hiring managers in military spouse hiring authorities and preferences. 

Expedited naturalization of non-citizen servicemembers 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) provides non-citizen servicemembers an expedited path to naturalization upon: (1) Successful completion of basic training; (2) Completion of 180 consecutive days of Active-Duty service, including service in basic training; and (3) Honorable characterization of their 

military service. Section 530 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps, who are lawful permanent residents, are 

informed of the availability of and process for naturalization 

through service in the military and that resources are available to 

assist qualified members in applying for naturalization. The committee encourages the Secretaries of the military departments to 

188 

establish procedures to identify all non-citizen servicemembers, 

who will be eligible for expedited naturalization upon fulfillment of 

the requirements discussed above, to take affirmative action to inform these servicemembers of their eligibility to apply for citizenship upon fulfillment of these requirements and to assist such 

servicemembers in applying for and obtaining citizenship, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Extended paid family leave for secondary caregivers 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) increased the maximum allowed leave for secondary caregivers of newborn infants 

from 10 to 21 days and that the military’s expanded primary caregiver parental leave program went into effect in March 2018. The 

committee notes that the Services continue to differ in how they 

implement this new policy. Now that the policy has been in effect 

for more than 1 year, the committee directs the Services to brief 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than May 1, 2020, on the impact that this 

policy change has had in the following areas: recruitment; retention; readiness; health and family wellness; and morale. 

Family Child Care home expansion 

For many years, Family Child Care (FCC) homes have been an 

essential element of the military childcare system. Operated by 

military spouses in on-base housing, FCC homes relieve demand 

for care at installation child development centers (CDCs), provide 

a reliable childcare option for families who prefer in-home care or 

need flexible scheduling, and offer employment opportunities for 

military spouses. FCC providers receive rigorous training through 

the Department of Defense (DOD), must be licensed, and must pass 

background checks and regular inspections. 

Unfortunately, the number of FCC homes in operation has declined over time. Currently, there are fewer than 1,000 homes in 

the program. With the demand for childcare continuing to increase, 

the DOD is educating military families on all of the options available to them and encouraging families to enroll their children in 

FCC homes. The DOD also encourages military spouses to consider 

enrolling their homes in the FCC program, as an employment opportunity, while expanding childcare capacity on an installation. 

The committee has heard reports, however, of military spouses 

operating unlicensed childcare centers from their on-base homes. 

These unlicensed childcare centers may not adhere to the strict 

standards required of CDCs and licensed FCC homes, putting the 

health and safety of military children at risk. When faced with long 

waiting lists at CDCs and few affordable options off base, some 

families feel that their only option is an unlicensed care provider. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

produce data on the number of unlicensed childcare centers in military homes and to determine the barriers preventing childcare providers from entering the FCC program. The Department shall brief 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on these data and barriers no later than March 1, 

2020. 

189 

Full time support manpower study 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

manpower study of the full time support requirements of the Department of Defense to determine the proper allocation of military 

technicians (dual status), Active Guard and Reserve personnel, and 

Federal civilian employees employed under title 5, United States 

Code, under the supervision of State Adjutants General. The Secretary shall submit the results of this review to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by no 

later than April 1, 2021. 

Military childcare system study on outcomes for children 

and parents 

The committee recognizes the importance of providing childcare 

services to servicemembers. Data on the positive effects of the Department of Defense’s childcare program on children and 

servicemembers provide important information on the program’s 

best practices and the benefits of the program’s focus on affordability, quality, and access. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than January 1, 2023, a report with an assessment of the positive effects of the Department’s childcare program on children, servicemembers, and military families. The assessment shall include: (1) A comparison to services provided in the 

private sector; (2) An evaluation of children’s developmental outcomes, school readiness, and performance in school; (3) Parental 

outcomes such as productivity and military family engagement; (4) 

An examination of how affordability, access, quality, and childcare 

workforce training and requirements contribute to the program’s 

success; and (5) An assessment as to how the Department’s investments in these areas promote military readiness. 

Rapidly incorporating data tools to enhance military recruiting 

The committee notes that while the Services, and in particular 

the Army, are making progress in effective marketing, advertising, 

and recruiting investments, much more remains to be done. One 

major part of solving recruiting shortfalls is the integration of commercial data analytics into existing military marketing and advertising practices. The committee understands that the Under Secretary of the Army is presently evaluating such commercial tools, 

commends this initiative, and directs the Army and the other services to move as expeditiously as is feasible to incorporate these capabilities into the Services’ suite of marketing, advertising, and recruitment tools while taking steps necessary to ensure that such 

data analytics tools are free of gender or racial bias. 

Reliability and completeness of information in inspector 

general case management systems 

Department of Defense (DOD) component inspectors general 

serve a critical role by providing an independent and impartial 

channel outside of the chain of command through which 

servicemembers can report fraud, waste, abuse, and other misVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
190 

conduct. The committee believes that it is important that all matters reported to the DOD Office of Inspector General and DOD 

component inspectors general and investigated, whether by an inspector general or the command, are properly documented and retained in accordance with records retention policies applicable to 

inspector general case management systems, regardless of the subject’s rank and the disposition of the matter and even when the 

matter might also be documented in a non-inspector general system of records. 

This committee and the DOD must have confidence in the integrity, reliability, and completeness of the data in the DOD component inspector general case management systems. The DOD Office 

of Inspector General and DOD component inspector general case 

management systems are searched in support of personnel actions 

that require Presidential, Secretary of Defense, and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness approval and Senate 

confirmation. These systems are also searched for service promotion boards and professional military education boards, and 

their data are screened for command and appointment to other sensitive positions, including inspectors general, recruiters, and sexual 

assault response coordinators. 

Inspector general case management systems are also important 

as a comprehensive source for assessing multiple complaints 

against the same subject, even if each individual complaint against 

a subject is not substantiated. The completeness and reliability of 

these databases are also important to analyses of trends in misconduct across the Department. 

Therefore, the committee believes that, at a minimum, the DOD 

Inspector General and DOD component inspector general case 

management systems should include: (1) The subject’s name in the 

corresponding subject data field; (2) The allegation(s) in the corresponding allegation data field; (3) Whether the allegation(s) are 

substantiated or not substantiated; and (4) Corrective action(s) 

taken in the corresponding corrective action data field. 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps Scholarship Program and 

Recruiting of Future Cyber Officers 

Section 1649 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) amended chapter 112 of title 10, 

United States Code, to establish the Department of Defense Cyber 

Scholarship Program. The committee believes that the Cyber Scholarship program may help alleviate the challenges that the Department of Defense is experiencing in recruiting and retaining cybersecurity personnel. The committee also believes that Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) programs at universities that offer degrees in cyber studies and related fields provide an opportunity to 

leverage and expand partnerships to assist in closing the gap of 

trained cyber warriors in the military. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed 

Services Committee by February 1, 2020, on potential means to leverage the ROTC scholarship program to help alleviate the challenges that the Department is experiencing in recruiting and retaining cybersecurity personnel. 

191 

Review of support services provided to military 

servicemembers assigned to designated remote bases 

The committee has received concerning anecdotal reports about 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) inconsistent approach to designating installations as remote or isolated and the implications for 

support services available at such installations. The committee 

notes that remote or isolated installations often have reduced medical and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) services. While 

servicemembers and dependents appear to be screened before being 

assigned to these installations, it is unclear whether the support 

services available are sufficient to meet their needs, particularly regarding medical services. It also remains unclear whether the DOD 

has standard metrics for designating installations as ‘‘remote’’ and 

ensuring that resources are distributed evenly across such installations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a study assessing the process by which 

the DOD designates installations as ‘‘remote’’ or ‘‘isolated’’ and the 

process for ensuring the sufficiency of support services provided at 

those installations. The study shall review: (1) DOD’s process for 

defining remote and isolated installations; (2) DOD’s process for defining the type and level of support services, such as medical, 

MWR, educational, housing, and childcare, at such installations; (3) 

How those support services provided at such installations differ, if 

at all, across the Services; and (4) DOD’s process for assessing the 

sufficiency of support services at such locations, including the extent to which the DOD measures the needs of the assigned military 

population and their dependents and assesses the capabilities of 

the local community to meet those needs. The Comptroller General 

shall brief, at a minimum, preliminary observations from the study 

no later than February 28, 2020, to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Rights of sexual assault survivors to testify at court-martial 

sentencing proceedings 

The committee recognizes the importance of providing survivors 

of sexual assault an opportunity to provide a full and complete description of the impact of the assault on the survivor during courtmartial sentencing hearings related to the offense. The committee 

is concerned by reports that that some military judges have interpreted Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1001A too narrowly, limiting 

what survivors are permitted to say during sentencing hearings in 

ways that do not fully inform the court of the impact of the crime 

on the survivor. 

Therefore, the committee urges military judges to provide great 

deference to victims of crimes who exercise their right to be heard 

under RCM 1001A at sentencing hearings. Military judges should 

also be lenient in permitting other witnesses to testify about the 

impact of the crime under RCM 1001. 

Safe to Report policy 

One of the most significant and recurring barriers to the reporting of sexual assaults is assault victims’ concern about being punished for collateral misconduct. The committee commends the Safe 

192 

to Report policy of the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). 

This policy requires commanders to consider each instance of collateral misconduct by a victim of sexual assault on a case-by-case 

basis. In addition to the seriousness of the collateral misconduct, 

a commander is required to consider whether he or she would have 

been aware of the collateral misconduct had the victim not reported 

the assault. In the absence of aggravating circumstances, USAFA 

cadets who report a sexual assault are not punished for violations 

of Air Force Cadet Wing instructions involving alcohol use or possession, consensual intimate behavior in the cadet area, unprofessional relationships/fraternization among cadets, or exceeding 

cadet-area limits. The Safe to Report policy encourages commonsense limits on punishing victims of sexual assault—all in an effort 

to encourage victims to report assaults so that the Academy can 

address that significantly more serious criminal misconduct. The 

committee encourages the Secretaries of the military departments 

to consider whether collateral misconduct policies akin to USAFA’s 

Safe to Report policy could be adapted to other organizations and 

contexts. 

Special Victims’ Counsel legal consultation and assistance 

to victims subject to retaliation 

The Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) and Victims’ Legal Counsel 

(VLC) play critical roles in the military justice system, providing 

survivors of alleged sex-related offenses with legal representation 

and advocacy, legal consultation and assistance, and support. The 

offense of retaliation, as established in section 932 of title 10, 

United States Code, and in the laws and cases governing equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination, is not expressly cited 

in section 1044a of title 10, United States Code, which enumerates 

the scope of services that an SVC or VLC is authorized to provide. 

While SVCs and VLCs will generally assist victims who are subject 

to incidents of retaliation, the committee is aware that victims may 

not be aware that this additional support is available, particularly 

when the retaliatory acts occur after the conclusion of any military 

justice proceedings associated with the sex-related offense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends the expansion of the guiding principles and regulations applicable to the SVC/VLC programs 

to require an SVC/VLC to inform his or her client of the availability of legal consultation and assistance in connection with any 

incident of retaliation to which the victim may be subject, including 

incidents that occur after any military justice proceedings in regard 

to a sex-related offense have concluded. 

Support for Air Force Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps Flight Academy 

As the United States confronts a shortage of pilots and aviation 

professionals, both the military and the private sector must look to 

increase awareness and enthusiasm for aviation-related careers 

among today’s youth. The committee supports the Air Force’s attempts to boost interest in aviation professions through its Air 

Force Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) Flight Academy program. 

193 

First year results of the program are promising. 85 percent of 

participants completed the required curriculum and obtained a private pilot’s license. Additionally, 20 participants are now enrolled 

in university ROTC programs and on a path to earning commissions as Air Force officers. More than 33 percent of participants 

come from historically underrepresented groups in the aviation 

community. 

The committee encourages the Air Force to expand this important program. As pilot shortages continue to grow in the other 

services, this program should serve as a model to motivate young 

Americans to pursue careers in military aviation. 

Telework option for military spouses in Department of Defense contracts 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD) contracts do not normally allow for offsite work options like telework, 

which hinders the entire workforce and notably, military spouses. 

If a military spouse employed by a DOD contractor moves with 

their servicemember on government orders, regardless of their employment performance, they are typically unable to continue working for a DOD contractor in a remote capacity due to standard contract requirements written by the DOD. 

Telework has expanded across the Federal government because 

it improves employee morale, enhances work-life balance for employees, improves recruiting and retention of the best and brightest 

workforce, and maximizes organizational productivity. DOD policy, 

Department of Defense Instruction 1035.01, states that ‘‘telework 

shall be: Used to help create employment and return-to-work opportunities for veterans, people with disabilities, and spouses of 

Service members and employees being relocated.’’ Meanwhile, 

telework is performed routinely in the private sector to the benefit 

of companies and employees alike. 

Military families continually make sacrifices to support the missions of servicemembers and should not be further disadvantaged 

in employment due to an outdated contract requirement for onsite 

work. Military spouses have an unemployment rate of 30 percent, 

more than 7 times the unemployment rate for the United States as 

a whole. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to review the inclusion of an offsite work option in DOD contracts 

to encourage continuity of employment for workforces that often include military spouses and to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the review 

no later than March 1, 2020. 

Timely response to inspector general referral of reports of 

investigation substantiating reprisal 

The committee is aware that a report of investigation documenting an allegation of reprisal substantiated by an inspector 

general must be referred to the Secretary of Homeland Security or 

the Secretary of the military department concerned for review and 

appropriate action. Although applicable law affords the secretary 

concerned the authority to determine that corrective or disciplinary 

action against the perpetrator is not warranted in a particular 

case, the law does not permit the secretary’s determination that an 

194 

act of reprisal did not occur, contrary to the inspector general’s 

finding. The law further prescribes strict timelines within which 

the receiving secretary must review the report of investigation, determine whether or not corrective or disciplinary action is warranted, and advise others of that determination, including the Secretary of Defense, the relevant inspector general, and the complainant in the case. 

The committee is aware of numerous reprisal cases in which a 

secretary’s response to the relevant inspector general has been delayed by months or years. Furthermore, in some of those late cases, 

the secretary’s response advised that no corrective or disciplinary 

action had been taken against the perpetrator because of a belief 

that the inspector general’s substantiation determination was erroneous or improper. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Inspector General of the Department of 

Homeland Security, as applicable, to include in their semiannual 

reports to the Congress a listing of the substantiated reprisal cases 

in which: (1) More than 180 days have elapsed since the relevant 

inspector general provided the report of investigation to the secretary concerned, without response; (2) More than 180 days have 

elapsed between the date on which the relevant inspector general 

provided the report of investigation to the secretary concerned and 

the date on which the secretary’s response was received by the inspector general; and (3) the secretary’s response takes issue with 

the inspector general’s determination that an act of reprisal occurred. Each listing shall include: (1) The case name and number; 

(2) The date on which the inspector general provided the case to 

the secretary concerned; (3) Whether the inspector general received 

the response of the secretary concerned and the date of that response; and (4) The name, grade, and duty position of the officer 

or employee who took issue with the inspector general’s determination that an act of reprisal occurred, as applicable, together with 

any explanation, rationale, or comments on the matter provided by 

that officer or employee. 

Training Department of Defense and military department 

human resources personnel to assist military spouses 

seeking employment 

Military spouse employment is an essential component of military family readiness. Bringing qualified, highly-motivated military 

spouses into the Department of Defense (DOD) civilian workforce 

also benefits the Department. The committee is aware that human 

resources systems and practices within the DOD continue to pose 

significant barriers to military spouse employment. Specifically, 

DOD human resources personnel have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the authorities and processes for the non-competitive 

appointment of military spouses to DOD positions for which they 

are qualified. Notwithstanding the issuance of Executive Order 

(EO) 13473, dated September 25, 2018, which allowed agencies to 

make noncompetitive appointments of certain military spouses of 

members of the Armed Forces, and the enactment of section 573 of 

the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232), which expanded non-competitive 

195 

appointment eligibility to all spouses of Active-Duty 

servicemembers through 2023, the committee is aware of circumstances in which DOD human resources personnel have advised military spouse applicants that their only option for securing 

employment with the DOD is to compete for appointment via 

USAJobs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing on the processes it has or will employ: (1) To disseminate information about military spouse non-competitive appointment policies and processes throughout the DOD; (2) To train 

and educate DOD and military department human resources personnel—from headquarters to the installation level—to apply such 

policies and processes to hiring actions for individual military 

spouse applicants; and (3) To modify human resources systems to 

better accommodate military spouse employment actions. In addition, the briefing shall detail the oversight mechanisms that each 

of the Services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have applied or will apply to assess policy compliance by human resources 

personnel across the Department and to measure both military 

spouse and hiring official satisfaction with the hiring process. The 

briefing shall be provided to the committee no later than February 

1, 2020. 

Transition Assistance Programs at remote and isolated installations 

The committee notes the importance of ensuring that military 

skills and experience can be applied to gainful civilian employment 

after separation and discharge. The committee is aware that Transition Assistance Programs (TAPs) provide transitioning 

servicemembers with job skills training and apprenticeships that 

could help prevent above average rates of suicide, drug addiction, 

and unemployment found in veteran populations. The committee 

encourages military installation commanders to consider these factors—especially at more remote and isolated permanent military 

installations where these issues compound—when considering civilian training opportunities for transitioning servicemembers. The 

committee also encourages installation commanders to ensure that 

TAPs are accessible to servicemembers and to allow them to use 

appropriate time off to pursue civilian training. 

Tuition assistance in the Reserves and National Guard 

Tuition assistance is a valuable incentive that can help the military meet its recruiting and retention goals. The committee is 

aware that there may be differences in how each military department implements its tuition assistance program, particularly as it 

pertains to the Reserves and National Guard, which often struggle 

to achieve authorized end strength levels. Therefore, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the 

Army to review their respective tuition assistance policies to identify and rectify any inconsistencies that may adversely affect the 

Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, Army National Guard, and 

Army Reserve. 

(197) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Expansion of eligibility for exceptional transitional compensation for dependents to dependents of current 

members (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1059(m) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to provide transitional compensation, in exceptional circumstances, to certain dependents before an eligible servicemember is discharged from Active Duty. By 

eliminating the requirement that a servicemember be separated 

from Active Duty before a secretary of a military department may 

authorize exceptional eligibility for transitional compensation, this 

provision would ensure that all dependents and former dependents 

who have been subjected to dependent abuse are treated in a fair, 

equitable, and similar manner. 

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, 

through December 31, 2020, various expiring bonus and special pay 

authorities for military personnel. The provision would extend special pay and bonus authority for reserve personnel, military 

healthcare professionals, and nuclear officers and consolidated pay 

authorities for officer and enlisted personnel. The provision would 

also extend the authority to provide temporary increases in the 

rate of Basic Allowance for Housing in certain circumstances. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Extension of pilot program on a Government lodging program (sec. 621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 453 of title 37, United States Code, to extend by 1 year the 

Secretary of Defense’s authority to execute a Department of Defense (DOD) lodging program. 

The Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) originally authorized a 5-year DOD lodging pilot program. The pilot 

program successfully demonstrated increased hotel quality and 

substantial discounts in room rates paid by the government. Additionally, overall traveler satisfaction remains high. In 2017, the 

198 

pilot program achieved average savings of 16 percent across 189 

participating hotels. 

The Department has informed the committee that it will submit 

its final report on the lodging pilot program by May 31, 2019. 

Based on current information, the committee expects to be satisfied 

that the pilot program accomplished its stated goal of achieving 

significant savings while increasing the quality of temporary lodging for DOD-funded travelers. 

Reinvestment of travel refunds by the Department of Defense (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with the authority to receive and effectively 

reinvest miscellaneous receipts obtained through a travel rebate or 

refund program, a repayment of inaccurate charges, or a collection 

of an unused travel segment (e.g., airline ticket). 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

Contributions to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund based on pay costs per Armed Force rather 

than on Armed Forces-wide basis (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1465 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to make contributions to the Military Retirement Fund 

based on an actuarial calculation of each service’s planned pension 

obligations, beginning with fiscal year 2021. 

The committee notes that, since 1984, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has funded its military retirement program using a financing procedure in which the DOD makes monthly contributions 

based on percentages of basic pay. This method of funding, known 

as accrual accounting, requires the Department to set aside funds 

from current budgets for retirement annuities that will eventually 

be received by today’s military personnel. 

Current law requires the DOD to develop a single contribution 

rate across the Department for all Active-Duty personnel and a single rate for all reserve component personnel. For example, in fiscal 

year 2017, the Department contributed an amount equal to 28.9 

percent of Active-Duty personnel basic pay and an amount equal 

to 22.8 percent of selected reserve personnel basic pay to the Military Retirement Fund. 

The committee notes that the current system produces a disparity between the Services. Those services that have fewer personnel who reach full retirement eligibility, like the Marine Corps, 

contribute more to the Military Retirement Fund than needed to 

pay for retired marines’ pensions. Meanwhile, those Services that 

have larger numbers of personnel who reach full retirement eligibility, like the Air Force, effectively receive a discount on their 

Military Retirement Fund contributions by paying less than the 

service will need to fund retired airmen’s pensions. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report 

on December 4, 2018, titled ‘‘Military Retirement: Service Contributions Do Not Reflect Service Specific Estimated Costs and Full EfVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
199 

fect of Proposed Legislation is Unknown’’ (GAO–19–195R). The 

GAO found that ‘‘the mandated single, aggregate contribution rate 

does not reflect service specific retirement costs.’’ Additionally, the 

GAO found that ‘‘the estimated probability of reaching 20 years of 

service was almost 15 percentage points higher—and more than 

three times higher—for the Air Force than the Marine Corps.’’ Further, a recent DOD Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessment of the Military Retirement Fund contribution 

method found that the current procedure creates ‘‘large cross-subsidies among the services’’’ and ‘‘does not provide clear signals and 

incentives for shaping an efficient experience mix of personnel.’’ 

As each service updates its overall force profile to support the 

National Defense Strategy and implement other reforms, like those 

to the Blended Retirement System, the committee believes that it 

is critical that senior leaders in the DOD accurately account for the 

fully-burdened life-cycle cost of each service’s manpower plans. 

Modification of authorities on eligibility for and replacement of gold star lapel buttons (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to determine the eligible recipients of the gold star 

lapel button. Additionally, the provision would authorize the Department to replace a lapel button upon application and without 

cost. 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund 

Instrumentality Benefits and Operations 

Defense resale system matters (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chief Management Officer of the Department of 

Defense, to maintain oversight of the business transformation efforts of the defense commissary system and the exchange stores 

system to ensure: (1) Development of an inter-component business 

strategy that maximizes efficiencies and results in a viable defense 

resale system in the future; (2) Preservation of patron savings and 

satisfaction from and in the defense commissary system and exchange stores system; and (3) Sustainment of financial support of 

the defense commissary and exchange systems for morale, welfare, 

and recreation services of the Armed Forces. The provision would 

require the Executive Resale Board of the Department to advise 

the Under Secretary on the implementation of sustainable, complementary operations of the defense commissary system and the 

exchange stores system. Additionally, the provision would require 

the Defense Commissary Agency and the Military Exchange Service to identify and implement best commercial business practices 

and shared-services systems while integrating certain services provided by the exchange stores system within commissary system facilities. The provision would also require the modernization of information technology and implementation of cutting-edge marketing in the defense resale system. Finally, the provision would 

amend section 2483(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

200 

inclusion of advertising expenses in the operating expenses of commissary stores. 

The committee notes that military commissaries and exchanges 

provide a critical and highly valued in-kind benefit to military personnel and their families as they help to supplement 

servicemembers’ incomes through savings on purchases of food and 

household items. As the Department implements changes to the defense resale system to ensure its long-term viability, the committee 

anticipates that future modernization efforts will result in a system 

that can compete with the private sector while preserving the inkind benefit that patrons expect. 

Treatment of fees on services provided as supplemental 

funds for commissary operations (sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2483(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize retention 

of fees collected on services provided to secondary patron groups, 

such as Department of Defense contractors living overseas, by the 

Defense Commissary Agency to offset commissary operating costs. 

Procurement by commissary stores of certain locally 

sourced products (sec. 643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that dairy products, fruits, and 

vegetables procured for defense commissary stores are, to the extent practicable, locally sourced. 

Items of Special Interest 

Blended Retirement System implementation study 

The committee notes that the period for eligible members to elect 

whether to transition to the new Blended Retirement System (BRS) 

has concluded and that all new recruits are now automatically enrolled in the system. To monitor the effectiveness of the BRS on 

both recruitment and retention of the all-volunteer force, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Secretaries of the military departments and the service chiefs, to 

review the implementation of the BRS and provide details regarding ongoing decisions associated with the new retirement system by 

submitting a report, no later than May 1, 2020, that provides the 

following information: 

(1) An assessment of the BRS transition period, to include: 

(a) An enumeration of members who elected to transition 

into the BRS broken out by service, grade, gender, race, 

marital status, occupation, duty location, and other pertinent demographics; 

(b) The proportion of members who elected to transition 

by demographic; and 

(c) Whether the differences in choice structure (e.g., marines were required to elect to either remain in the legacy 

retirement system or switch to BRS) contributed to disparities in enrollment rates between the Services. 

(2) An analysis of Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) matching contributions, to include: 

201 

(a) The TSP contribution level of servicemembers enrolled in the BRS broken out by demographic information; 

(b) Whether servicemembers who receive special pay or 

incentives are more inclined to contribute and receive 

matching contributions; 

(c) The extent to which the Services are supporting 

servicemembers in making sound financial decisions regarding matching contributions; and 

(d) Whether actual TSP contribution rates and investment choices are creating a wealth disparity in retirement 

among servicemembers. 

(3) An explanation of planned continuation pay policy, to include: 

(a) The method the Services will use to determine continuation pay levels, to include details on how the Services 

will determine when a member will receive notification of 

the continuation pay offer, the amount of the multiplier, 

the timing of payment, whether the pay will vary by occupation, skill, or other factors, and the duration of the required service obligation; and 

(b) An econometric analysis of possible methods to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of continuation pay. 

(4) An analysis of BRS impacts, including: 

(a) Whether the BRS has affected or is likely to affect 

historic recruitment and retention trends; and 

(b) An assessment of the tools inherent in DOD BRS policy that will allow the Services to achieve necessary recruitment and retention levels; and 

(5) Recommendations for statutory change necessary to address issues of fairness and equity identified by the review. 

Commissary store operations 

The committee recognizes the importance of commissary stores to 

military families, who rely on these stores for purchase of food and 

dry goods at substantial discounts. When commissaries either undergo periods of closure or reductions of operating hours, military 

families cannot use this important in-kind benefit. Moreover, with 

prolonged closures during government shutdowns, military families 

dependent on commissaries face even greater hardship. Therefore, 

the committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to maintain commissary operations during any future government shutdowns. 

Comptroller General assessment on defense resale reform 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense’s efforts to reform the business operations of the defense resale system 

and to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2019. The assessment shall include reviews of: (1) The potential impact of reform on the Defense Commissary Agency’s (DECA) 

overall sales, expenses, customer satisfaction, and expense structure; (2) The potential courses of action that may increase competitiveness, reduce the DECA’s reliance on annual appropriations, and 

202 

position commissaries and military exchanges for annual sales 

growth; (3) Positive and negative effects of reform on commissary 

and military exchange patrons and employees; (4) The potential of 

the military exchanges to increase financial support to the Services’ 

morale, welfare, and recreation programs; and (5) Accounting procedures pertaining to the sources and uses of funds generated by 

and allocated to commissaries to ensure that sufficient internal 

controls are in place to safeguard funding. 

(203) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 701) 

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 network provider under TRICARE Select or a provider under TRICARE Prime. Additionally, a beneficiary would pay 

no cost-share for any prescription contraceptive on the uniform formulary that is provided by a network retail pharmacy provider or 

the mail-order pharmacy program. The effective date of this provision would be January 1, 2020. 

TRICARE payment options for retirees and their dependents (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1099 of title 10, United States Code, to require that a premium owed by a member, former member, or dependent, eligible 

for medical and dental care under section 1074(b) or 1076 of such 

title, be withheld, to the maximum extent practicable, from the individual’s retired, retainer, or equivalent pay. The provision would 

authorize the Secretary of Defense to determine the method and 

frequency of payment when circumstances prevent payment 

through an allotment from retired, retainer, or equivalent pay. The 

amendments in this provision would apply to health care coverage 

beginning on or after January 1, 2021. 

Lead level screening and testing for children (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) 

for Department of Defense healthcare providers on screening, testing, and reporting of blood lead levels in children. The provision 

would require dissemination of the CPGs within 1 year of the date 

of the enactment of this Act. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary to share test results with the parent or guardian of the child, the health department for the State in which the 

child resides in the United States, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the appropriate in-country authority if the 

child lives outside the United States. Finally, the provision would 

require the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the number of children screened, tested, and 

204 

treated for elevated blood lead levels beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act up to the date of the report. 

Provision of blood testing for firefighters of Department of 

Defense to determine exposure to perfluoroalkyl and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, beginning on October 1, 2020, to provide 

blood testing to determine and document potential exposure to 

perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances for firefighters of the 

Department of Defense during their annual physical exams. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Modification of organization of military health system (sec. 

711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1073c of title 10, United States Code, to make clarifying and 

technical amendments on the administration of the Defense Health 

Agency and military medical treatment facilities. 

Support by military health system of medical requirements 

of combatant commands (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision would amend section 712 

of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–332) to modify and clarify the military health system’s support to the medical requirements of the 

combatant commands. 

Tours of duty of commanders or directors of military treatment facilities (sec. 713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than January 1, 2021, to establish 

a minimum length of 4 years for tours of duty, with limited exceptions, for commanders or directors of military treatment facilities 

to ensure greater stability in health system executive management 

at each facility and throughout the military health system. 

The committee remains concerned that military treatment facility commanders or directors typically rotate to new duty stations 

every 2 years and that these frequent transfers lead to great instability in the management of hospitals and clinics. The rapid turnover of military hospital commanders and directors creates turmoil 

in hospital executive leadership and management, negatively affecting the performance of the local facility and the overall performance of the military health system. The committee believes 

that this provision would steady the executive management of military hospitals and clinics and improve the performance of those facilities. 

Expansion of strategy to improve acquisition of managed 

care support contracts under TRICARE program (sec. 

714) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 705(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

205 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to include overseas medical support contracts in the strategy to improve the acquisition of managed care support contracts under the TRICARE program. 

Establishment of regional medical hubs to support combatant commands (sec. 715) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than October 1, 2022, to establish 

up to four regional medical hubs, consistent with section 712 of the 

John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2019 (Public Law 115–232), to support the operational medical requirements of the combatant commands. Under this provision, each 

regional hub would include a major military medical center to provide complex, specialized medical services in that region. The regional medical center would be geographically located to maximize 

medical support to combatant commands. The provision would authorize the Secretary 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. 

Monitoring of adverse event data on dietary supplement use 

by members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to modify the Department’s electronic health 

record (EHR) system to include data regarding use of dietary supplements by members of the Armed Forces and any adverse events 

associated with such use. The provision would also require the Secretary to educate healthcare providers in the military health system on the importance of including adverse event data in the EHR 

and reporting those data to the Food and Drug Administration. 

Enhancement of recordkeeping with respect to exposure by 

members of the Armed Forces to certain occupational 

and environmental hazards while deployed overseas 

(sec. 717) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074f of title 10, United States Code, to require the Department of Defense to include occupational or environmental health 

exposures during deployment in its medical tracking system. The 

provision would also require the Department to provide healthcare 

providers with questions to ask servicemembers about occupational 

or environmental health exposures during post-deployment health 

assessments and to ensure that the medical records of 

servicemembers include information on the external cause relating 

to a medical diagnosis of the member. Finally, the provision would 

require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department’s 

medical personnel have access to information in the burn pit registry maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

206 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Extension and clarification of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title 

XVII of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) to make certain technical corrections to such 

title. Additionally, the provision would permit the James A. Lovell 

Federal Health Care Center to enter into personal services contracts to carry out healthcare responsibilities at the Center to the 

same extent and subject to the same conditions and limitations as 

in medical treatment facilities of the Department of Defense. Finally, the provision would extend the authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2020, to September 30, 2021. 

Appointment of non-ex officio members of the Henry M. 

Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military 

Medicine (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of section 178(c) of title 10, United 

States Code, to authorize the appointment of a member of the 

council of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement 

of Military Medicine by currently serving members upon the expiration of the term of a member. The provision would also amend 

paragraph (2) of such section to repeal an obsolete authority establishing staggered terms of members of the council. The provision 

would not terminate or otherwise alter the appointment or term of 

service of council members serving on the date of the enactment of 

this Act. 

Officers authorized to command Army dental units (sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 7081(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize Army 

Medical Department Officers to command Army dental units. The 

provision would give the Secretary of the Army greater flexibility 

in managing officers within the Army Medical Department. 

Establishment of Academic Health System in National Capital Region (sec. 724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, by inserting a new section 

that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish an Academic Health System in the National Capital Region to integrate 

the healthcare, health professions education, and health research 

activities of the military health system in that region. The provision would authorize the Secretary to appoint employees of the Department of Defense to leadership positions in the Academic Health 

System in addition to similar leadership positions for members of 

the Armed Forces. Moreover, the provision would authorize the 

Secretary to use the authorities under chapter 104 for the administration of the Academic Health System. 

207 

Provision of veterinary services by veterinary professionals 

of the Department of Defense in emergencies (sec. 725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a licensed veterinary professional of the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide 

veterinary services in any state, the District of Columbia, and any 

territory or possession of the United States, if the services provided 

fall within the scope of authorized duties of the veterinary professional for the DOD. This provision would ensure that the DOD can 

rapidly respond to requests for veterinary services assistance from 

lead Federal departments and agencies supporting emergency management responses. 

Five-year extension of authority to continue the DOD–VA 

Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund (sec. 726) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8111(d)(3) of title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of the Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 

Affairs Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund to September 30, 

2025. 

Pilot Program on civilian and military partnerships to enhance interoperability and medical surge capability and 

capacity of National Disaster Medical System (sec. 727) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for no more than 

5 years to establish partnerships with public, private, and non-profit health care organizations, institutions, and entities in collaboration with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human 

Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation to enhance interoperability and medical surge capability and capacity of the National Disaster Medical System. Under this pilot, the Secretary of 

Defense would establish these partnerships at no fewer than five 

major aeromedical transport hub regions of the Department of Defense in the United States. The provision would require, if the pilot 

were to proceed, the Secretary of Defense to submit an initial report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after commencement of the pilot program, and a final report to the same committees within 180 days of the completion of the program. 

Modification of requirements for longitudinal medical study 

on blast pressure exposure of members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 728) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 734 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) to modify the requirements of the Longitudinal Medical Study on Blast Pressure Exposure on Members of 

the Armed Forces. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit annual status reports on the study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than January 1 of each year until completion of the 

study. 

208 

Items of Special Interest 

Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine 

The Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) is 

a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary network of universities, military health system laboratories, and investigators designed to promote regenerative medicine therapies. The AFIRM is dedicated to 

repairing battlefield injuries with regenerative medicine technology, and it has supported several clinical trials treating hundreds of patients with novel therapeutic strategies in wound repair 

and tissue replacement. The committee understands that fiscal 

year 2019 is the final year of funding for the AFIRM and encourages the Department of Defense to build upon AFIRM’s successes 

by renewing the program, using a public-private consortium model, 

for another 5-year term. 

Chronic Migraine and Post-Traumatic Headaches 

The committee understands that chronic migraine (CM) is often 

associated with post-traumatic headaches (PTH) of patients who 

suffer from traumatic brain injury (TBI). There appear to be minimal data, however, on the follow-up and treatment of PTH and 

post-traumatic chronic migraine beyond 2 years after a TBI. Furthermore, there is very little biochemical understanding of these 

disease processes and their interrelationships, and no biomarkers 

exist to help diagnose, classify, and monitor these headache disorders. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to support research to develop biomarkers useful in diagnosing and monitoring TBI patients with CM or PTH. 

Comptroller General Review of Enlisted Medical Workforce 

The committee notes that enlisted medical personnel, such as 

medics and corpsmen, represent over half of the total medical force 

and that they are essential to maintaining the Department of Defense’s (DOD) substantial health care delivery capability in both an 

operational setting and at home for military families and retirees. 

At the direction of Congress, the DOD has taken initial steps to review the readiness of medical providers. The DOD has also provided some opportunities for its military physicians to practice at 

civilian hospitals; however, many of its enlisted medical personnel 

are often utilized differently than comparable professionals in civilian hospitals and are not required to obtain many of the same certifications or licenses. Therefore, enlisted medical personnel may 

have fewer such opportunities. Given the efforts that the DOD has 

initiated to address medical provider readiness and to ensure that 

enlisted medical personnel have skills that are easily transferable 

to the civilian sector, the committee is concerned about the overall 

readiness of the enlisted medical workforce. 

The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a study assessing the enlisted medical 

workforce. The study shall review DOD’s: (1) Metrics to assess the 

clinical currency and readiness of the enlisted medical workforce; 

(2) Plans for providing the medical workload and training necessary to maintain clinical currency and readiness of enlisted medical personnel, including the DOD’s use of the direct care system; 

209 

and (3) Enlisted medical workforce reenlistment rates and efforts 

to retain those personnel. The Comptroller General shall present 

preliminary observations from the study to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than March 27, 2020. 

Department of Defense Briefing on the Rate and Incidence 

of Pregnancy-Associated Deaths 

The committee believes that caring for servicemembers and their 

families is the essential foundation of readiness. The committee is 

aware that the United States is the only industrialized nation with 

a rising maternal mortality rate. Data suggest more than half of 

pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, and approximately half 

of maternal injuries could be reduced or eliminated with better 

care and enhanced maternal mortality information systems. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2020, reporting 

the rate and incidence of pregnancy-associated deaths, defined as 

the death of a woman while pregnant or during the 1-year period 

following the date of the end of pregnancy, and severe maternal 

morbidities, defined as unintended outcomes of pregnancy, labor, or 

delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences 

to a woman’s health. The briefing should also disaggregate data by 

cause of death, race, age, and rank of the woman (if applicable). 

Expansion of Studies of Exposure to Blast in Training And 

Operations and Documentation of Blast Exposure in Individual Longitudinal Exposure Records 

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects the mood and memory of 

more than 260,000 servicemembers, often disrupting one’s ability to 

continue to serve, maintain a job, reenter the community, or even 

reconnect with family upon returning home from deployment. The 

committee is aware of the novel research undertaken by U.S. Special Operations Command and the Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences to identify and measure the effects on brain 

and spine health of repeated exposure to the blast and acceleration 

effects associated with military training and operations. The committee commends and encourages continued innovative experimentation in emerging strategies and technologies for the prevention of 

TBI. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Department to: (1) Expand 

its blast and acceleration effects research and assessment protocols 

to other military occupations, weaponry and equipment, and training experiences, as appropriate; (2) Formalize the documentation of 

servicemembers’ measurable exposures to blast and acceleration effects in a longitudinal exposure record, individual to each servicemember and able to be shared with the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (3) Take appropriate actions to inform servicemembers of 

opportunities to participate in the programs of the Department of 

Defense’s Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine brain 

tissue repository to advance traumatic brain injury research. 

210 

Healthy Food Options on Military Installations 

The committee remains concerned about the growing obesity crisis in the Nation and its potential impact on our national defense. 

The lack of healthy food options on military installations, coupled 

with servicemembers’ poor eating habits, negatively affects force 

readiness and retention. Military dining facilities are currently the 

healthiest food option on installations; however, the committee understands that young servicemembers eat fewer than half of their 

meals at these facilities. Instead, they choose to purchase less 

healthy food at other on- or off-base venues. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, not later than November 1, 

2019, on the feasibility of continuing and expanding food service 

transformation efforts, focusing on nutritious food options, with the 

goal of modernizing the on-installation food service system. The 

briefing should include a plan for improving on-base accessibility to 

healthful prepared and pre-prepared food, leveraging leading practices from college and university dining facilities and lessons 

learned from previous Department of Defense food service transformation efforts. In addition, the plan should include a description 

of the potential to establish partnerships with local communities to 

improve the food service environment on military installations and 

to encourage healthful eating. Finally, the plan should include tests 

of various business models that increase the availability, affordability, and acceptability of healthy performance foods. 

Home healthcare services 

The committee supports the adoption of a program that would 

authorize a parent or family member to become a certified nursing 

assistant (CNA) to provide approved and medically-necessary 

skilled services for an eligible dependent child of that parent or 

family member under the TRICARE program. The parent or family 

member would be required to complete all required education and 

clinical training to become a licensed CNA before being authorized 

to provide physician-ordered care to the child. By authorizing family members to become certified home health care providers, the 

TRICARE program might experience a reduction in direct costs associated with the provision of home health care services. 

Objective diagnostic capabilities for traumatic brain injury 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

its significant efforts to improve the diagnosis of traumatic brain 

injury (TBI). Nevertheless, the DOD must do more work to develop 

advanced capabilities to diagnose TBI in all its forms, including 

mild TBI (mTBI)/concussion, which accounts for the vast majority 

of TBIs. To maintain the readiness of the total force and to protect 

service personnel better, it is imperative that the Department deploy capabilities that provide objective diagnostics for TBI in all its 

forms, particularly mTBI/concussion. Therefore, the committee encourages the DOD to deploy mTBI/concussion multi-modal diagnostic devices, already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, for echelons four and five medical care. 

211 

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations 

for specialized medical training 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

pilot program 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. 

If the Secretary determines to conduct the pilot program, the 

Secretary should first establish metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The committee considers such a pilot program 

an important element in helping military medical providers advance their skills and capabilities in medical specialties, such as orthopedic surgery, which would improve the medical readiness of 

the total force. 

Prescription drug labels 

As prescription drug manufacturers consider adoption of e-labels 

for some of their products, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to ensure that prescription drugs made available 

through the facilities of the uniformed services are accompanied by 

printed labels that are physically located on or within the package 

from which the drug is dispensed. These labels importantly provide 

adequate directions for a drug’s intended purposes. In situations 

where servicemembers are stationed in remote, internet-free locations, physical labels can often provide more reliable access to information than electronic labels. 

Study on infertility in members of the Armed Forces 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on the incidence of infertility among members of the Armed 

Forces and provide a report, not later than June 1, 2020, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. The study shall include the following elements: (1) 

Determination of the numbers of currently serving members of the 

Armed Forces who have been diagnosed with a common cause of 

infertility; (2) Determination of the number of servicemembers 

whose infertility has no known cause; (3) Determination of the incidence of miscarriage among female servicemembers by service and 

military occupation; (4) Comparison of infertility rates of female 

servicemembers to the infertility rates of their civilian counterparts; (5) Determination of demographic information about such 

servicemembers to include race, ethnicity, sex, age, military occupation, and possible hazardous environmental exposures during 

service; (6) Determination of the availability of infertility services 

for those servicemembers who desire such treatment, including 

waitlist times at the military treatment facilities providing those 

services; (7) Criteria used by each of the Services to determine 

service-connection for infertility, including whether screenings for 

environmental toxins were performed when the cause of infertility 

could not be determined; and (8) Current policies of the Department of Defense for ensuring geographic stability during the treatment of servicemembers’ undergoing medical treatment for infertility. 

212 

Survey to determine providers’ attitude towards contraceptive services, their knowledge on obligations to dispense 

and counsel on contraception and assess potential cultural barriers to providing contraceptive services 

The committee recognizes that access to contraception contributes to operational force readiness by ensuring that 

servicemembers can utilize contraception to prevent unintended 

pregnancies, manage their menstrual cycles, and for other non-contraceptive benefits. The committee is also aware that menstruation 

can be problematic during deployment and access to contraception, 

including for menstrual suppression, is a critical part of women’s 

preventive health care. The committee is pleased that the Armed 

Forces have made significant strides in improving access to contraception for military servicemembers, including ensuring that military facilities stock a broad range of Food and Drug Administration-approved methods of contraception and allowing contraception 

to be provided for the length of a servicemember’s deployment. 

However, the committee is concerned that misconceptions remain 

among both servicemembers and military healthcare providers 

about limitations on access to contraception for and during deployment. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a survey of active military and civilian healthcare providers 

who may counsel on or provide contraception in military treatment 

facilities, assessing their knowledge on prescribing and providing 

contraception for and during deployment. The survey should include questions on: (1) Whether the provider dispenses contraceptives in deployment settings; (2) Whether the provider believes that 

it is permitted to dispense contraception when a General Order 

prohibits sexual activity during deployment; (3) How large a supply 

of contraceptives a provider believes that it is authorized to dispense at a time; and (4) Circumstances under which the provider 

may not dispense requested contraception. Additionally, the survey 

should address the training a provider has received in contraceptive counseling, including whether the provider is knowledgeable 

about and provides information on the use of contraception for 

menstrual suppression and other deployment-relevant aspects of 

contraceptive methods such as shelf life and storage requirements. 

The survey shall disaggregate data by service branch. 

The Department shall provide a briefing on the survey results to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than 90 days after the completion of the 

survey. 

Tactical combat casualty care training 

Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 1322.24 requires all 

warfighters to complete Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) 

training as part of basic mobilization readiness, because TCCC is 

an important step in ensuring that military personnel receive the 

best pre-hospital medical care available. The committee has received reports, however, of substantial variation in TCCC training, 

including the teaching of incomplete or incorrect TCCC concepts. 

To address this variation, the committee strongly encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to: (1) Evaluate best practices for TCCC in the 

213 

Services; and (2) Establish standards to ensure uniform TCCC 

training for military personnel, to include training standards for 

best instructional practices for personnel conducting TCCC training. 

TRICARE coverage of continuous glucose monitors 

Approximately 420,000 military members or their family members have diabetes, with 180,000 of these patients currently using 

insulin. If not treated, diabetics face higher risks of heart disease, 

kidney failure, limb amputations, and blindness. The committee is 

aware that innovations in diabetes treatment options include recent technological advancements to continuous glucose monitoring 

systems (CGMS). These devices provide continuous glucose readings for patients and their physicians, allowing for more effective 

prevention strategies and better health outcomes. In 2017, Medicare expanded its diabetes treatment coverage for beneficiaries to 

include CGM coverage for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, among other 

criteria. The Veterans Health Administration subsequently updated its criteria for determining eligibility for CGM in January 

2019, a change that has the potential to make this life-improving 

and cost-saving technology available to more veterans. Private payers are also providing coverage for these devices at an increasing 

rate. Given the detrimental health impact of diabetes as well as the 

increased costs incurred for direct treatment and co-morbid medical 

complications of this disease, TRICARE should ensure that its 

beneficiaries have appropriate access to innovative and effective diabetes treatment options, access at least comparable to that enjoyed by veterans and Medicare beneficiaries. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to update the TRICARE criteria 

for use for CGMS and directs the Secretary to provide an update 

on its progress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

TRICARE improper medical claims payments 

The committee remains concerned about improper payments to 

TRICARE network providers. The Government Accountability Office published a report on February 18, 2015, titled ‘‘Improper Payments: TRICARE Measurements and Reduction Efforts Could Benefit from Adopting Medical Record Reviews’’ (GAO–15–269), that 

recommended that the Department of Defense implement more 

comprehensive TRICARE improper payment measurement methods 

that include medical record reviews. The Department concurred 

with this recommendation. Almost 4 years after the publication of 

this report, however, the Department has yet to implement this 

recommendation. 

Therefore, not later than November 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives a comprehensive report 

detailing: (1) The extent to which the Department will conduct 

medical record reviews; (2) The processes to request and receive 

such records from civilian network providers; (3) The manner in 

which cases will be coded if medical records are not returned; and 

(4) How the Department plans to use the results of the medical 

record reviews to improve its processes to identify improper payVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
214 

ments and to lower the improper payment error rate. Additionally, 

within 270 days of the Department’s submission of this report, the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall provide a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the extent to which the Department’s plan for 

including medical record reviews in its improper payment error 

rate calculation addresses the four areas outlined above and whether the Department’s medical record reviews process will result in 

a more robust and meaningful measure of improper medical claims 

payments by TRICARE. 

(215) 

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

Subtitle A—Contracting and Acquisition Provisions 

Pilot program on intellectual property evaluation for acquisition programs (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to jointly carry out a pilot program evaluating intellectual 

property in acquisition programs, using commercially available intellectual property valuation analysis and techniques, in order to 

determine these techniques’ utility in the formation of strategies 

and in assessing the value and costs of intellectual property during 

acquisition and sustainment activities. The committee notes that 

this provision is based on the recommendation of the Congressionally-mandated Technology Data Rights Study (‘‘Section 813’’) panel. 

Under the provision, if the pilot program were to be carried out, 

the Secretary of Defense would submit a report on the pilot to the 

congressional defense committees not later than November 1, 2020, 

and annually thereafter through 2023. 

Pilot program to use alpha contracting teams for complex 

requirements (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to use third-party 

industry, academia, or not-for-profit technical organizations as part 

of alpha contracting teams for complex technical requirements for 

services. The committee notes that this construct revives in a modern context the ‘‘alpha contracting’’ concept that is more than a 

decade old. Further, it brings together all government personnel involved in the functions that support acquisition actions, to include 

contracting staff as well as technical staff, operators, and cost personnel. This is intended to ensure that technical requirements are 

appropriately valued and that the most effective acquisition strategy to achieve these requirements is identified. 

Modification of written approval requirement for task and 

delivery order single contract awards (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2304a(d)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement that single award task or delivery order contracts over 

$100.0 million receive additional approval when already authorized 

under one of the exceptions to full and open competition. 

216 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority to acquire products and services produced in countries 

along a major route of supply to Afghanistan until December 31, 

2021. 

Modification of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 

report (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to solicit comments 

from the Secretaries of the military departments for inclusion in 

the Director’s annual report to Congress, retaining the Director’s 

discretion to issue the report without comments if they are not 

timely. This provision does not change or alter any Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation authorities. 

Department of Defense use of fixed-price contracts (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to review how the Department of Defense uses fixed-price contracts, including fixed-price incentive contracts, to support acquisition objectives. The committee is concerned about the extent to which the 

Department is using fixed-price contracts in situations in which 

other contract types would be more appropriate. Under this provision, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment would provide a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees on the results of this review not later than February 

1, 2020. 

The provision would further require the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit a report on the Department’s use of 

fixed-price contracts over time, to include costs, incentives, duration, and close-out procedures, to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2021. 

Finally, the provision would delay the implementation of regulations requiring the use of fixed-price contracts for foreign military 

sales until after 2020. 

Pilot program to accelerate contracting and pricing processes (sec. 807) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend a pilot 

established in section 890 of the John S. McCain National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232). That 

law authorized the Secretary of Defense to reform and accelerate 

the contracting and pricing processes for 10 programs on a pilot 

basis. The amendment would remove the 10-program limitation 

and would delay the program’s sunset from January 2, 2021, to 

January 2, 2022. 

Pilot program to streamline decision-making processes for 

weapon systems (sec. 808) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service acquisition executive for each military department to recVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
217 

ommend at least one major defense acquisition program to participate in the pilot program not later than February 1, 2020, and require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment to brief the congressional defense committees on these 

programs not later than May 1, 2020. 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD) 

weapon system programs often proceed slowly through the acquisition milestone decision process. In 2015, the Comptroller General 

of the United States recommended that the Secretary of Defense 

direct efforts to improve this process by piloting different approaches to streamline acquisition milestone decisions in major defense acquisition programs, with results that could be evaluated on 

and reported for potentially wider use. The committee notes that 

this reflects the ‘‘Skunk Works’’ approach described in DOD’s ‘‘Better Buying Power 3.0’’ memorandum. To date, the Government Accountability Office reports that only two weapon systems programs 

have participated in this program. 

Documentation of market research related to commercial 

item determinations (sec. 809) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2377(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require that market 

research be documented, at a level appropriate to the size and complexity of the acquisition, when procuring commercial products and 

services. 

Modification to small purchase threshold exception to 

sourcing requirements for certain articles (sec. 810) 

The committee recommends a provision that would lower the 

threshold for which the Department of Defense must comply with 

the rules of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, known 

as the Berry Amendment, to $150,000. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual briefing on the 

impacts of this provision to: Department of Defense costs and procurement efficiency and the health of the affected portions of the 

domestic industrial base. 

Subtitle B—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Naval vessel certification required before Milestone B approval (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a certification of compliance with section 8669b of title 10, United States 

Code, for naval vessel programs prior to Milestone B approval. 

Subtitle C—Industrial Base Matters 

Modernization of acquisition processes to ensure integrity 

of industrial base (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to modernize mitigation of risks to the integrity of the supply chain, to include those cited in recent studies on 

the defense industrial base. 

218 

The committee observes that contracting is the mechanism by 

which the Department of Defense operationalizes its relationship 

with the defense industrial base/national security innovation base. 

The committee notes that certain risks to the defense industrial 

base are not being appropriately considered. These include but are 

not limited to risks associated with: insufficient insight into ownership structures, fragile sources of supply, and cybersecurity concerns, as well as contractors’ violations of law pertaining to fraud, 

human trafficking, and worker health and safety. 

The committee further notes that, even where risks may be a 

high priority, the existing acquisition processes and procedures are 

not effective or timely in mitigating such risks. As such, the provision would require the Department to rigorously optimize the policy, processes, and procedures throughout the contracting life cycle, 

beginning with market research, responsibility determination, technical evaluation/award, mobilization, contract administration, contract management and oversight (to include contractor business 

systems reviews), and contract audit for closeout. It is critical that 

this optimization incorporate modern sources of data and methods 

to conduct appropriate and continuous risk assessment for contractors doing business with DOD. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General of the 

United States to coordinate individual reviews in these risk areas, 

report on them collectively, and begin annual reviews of the Department’s progress in this area. 

Assessment of precision-guided missiles for reliance on foreign-made microelectronic components (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Air Force to assess its reliance on foreign sources for all microelectronics in precision guided munitions currently in production. The 

Air Force would be required to identify which tier subcontractor 

supplied the microelectronics and evaluate the cybersecurity risk to 

precision guided munitions posed by foreign-made microelectronics. 

The provision would require the Air Force to brief the findings of 

its assessment to the congressional defense committees no later 

than August 31, 2020. 

Mitigating risks related to foreign ownership, control, or influence of Department of Defense contractors or subcontractors (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to amend policy and regulation to take steps 

to enhance the process for assessing and mitigating risks related 

to foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI). 

The committee is concerned by the growing threat to the integrity of the defense industrial base from strategic competitors, like 

the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and their 

proxies, seeking to gain access to sensitive defense information or 

technology through contractors or subcontractors. The committee 

recognizes the need for the Department’s acquisition community to 

have greater visibility into the potential FOCI of contractors and 

subcontractors seeking to do business with the Department to ensure that they do not pose a risk to the security of sensitive data, 

219 

systems, or processes such as personally identifiable information, 

cybersecurity systems, or national security systems. 

In order to aid in identifying the actual individual or individuals 

owning or controlling each contractor or subcontractor, the provision would require the companies to make certain disclosures. Such 

disclosures would then be considered in determining the responsibility of the contractor being considered for a contract or subcontract and standards under which a contract or subcontract could 

be terminated due to unmitigable risks. 

Extension and revisions to Never Contract With the Enemy 

(sec. 834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Never Contract With the Enemy program through 2023 and would 

provide for various expansions, including the contracts covered and 

the authorities of the combatant commands to mitigate threats 

posed by vendors supporting operations outside the United States. 

Subtitle D—Small Business Matters 

Reauthorization and improvement of Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make the Department of Defense’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program (MPP) permanent 

and repeal the half-size standard restriction for protege participants, restoring eligibility to disadvantaged small business concerns. The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office published a report on April 11, 2017, titled ‘‘Small Business 

Contracting: DOD Should Take Actions To Ensure that Its Pilot 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program Enhances the Capabilities of Prote ́ge ́

Firms’’ (GAO–17–172), which recommended that the Department 

take steps to ensure that the MPP achieves its mission by conducting periodic reviews of the processes for approving agreements 

and by developing performance goals and measures. Accordingly, 

the provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to direct 

the Defense Business Board to study the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations for program improvements. 

Modification of justification and approval requirement for 

certain Department of Defense contracts (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise authorities relating to Department of Defense approval of certain sole 

source awards to 8(a) firms, which include tribes, Alaska Native, 

and Hawaiian firms. Specifically, the threshold for requiring justification and approval would be increased to $100.0 million and 

the approving authority would be the head of procuring activity or 

a designee. The provision would also require the Department of Defense to collect data and the Comptroller General of the United 

States to report to the congressional defense committees on the impact of the provision. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure compliance with all appropriate acquisition regulations and Small Business Administration rules, including those regarding ownership of 

8(a) firms and in managing the subcontracting of work contracted 

220 

to 8(a) firms. In ensuring such compliance, the committee directs 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to 

establish mechanisms to collect and analyze relevant data. 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Software-Driven 

Capabilities 

Improved management of information technology and 

cyberspace investments (sec. 851) 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense’s 

process to account for, manage, and report its information technology and cyberspace investments—which account for at least 

$50.0 billion annually—is inefficient. Further, the committee believes that the process results in unnecessary delays in preparing 

the annual budget exhibit and in regulatory reporting under the 

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act of 2015, incorporated into the Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). After 

years of legislation and regulation, the definitions pertaining to 

and the methods of grouping and accounting for spending on these 

investments have become cumbersome and obscure and as such 

hinder, rather than assisting with, insight into and oversight of 

spending plans and portfolio management. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

require the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to work with the Chief 

Data Officer to optimize this process. Such optimization should include alternative methods of presenting budget justification materials to the public and congressional staff to more accurately communicate when, how, and with what frequency capability is delivered to end users, in accordance with best practices for managing 

and reporting on information technology investments. The committee directs the CIO to brief the congressional defense committees and recommend any necessary legislative changes not later 

than February 3, 2020. 

Special pathways for rapid acquisition of software applications and upgrades (sec. 852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish guidance, not later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act, authorizing the use of special pathways for the rapid acquisition of software applications and upgrades that are intended to be fielded within 1 year. These new 

pathways would prioritize continuous integration and delivery of 

working software in a secure manner and prioritize continuous 

oversight from automated analytics. 

Further, the committee commends the work of the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) in conducting its ‘‘Software Acquisition and 

Practices’’ study and further commends the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment’s commitment to adopting 

the DIB’s recommendations. The committee agrees with the 

premise outlined in the report that ‘‘software is never done’’ and 

with the emphasis on the distinct role of software development in 

both applications and embedded systems. The committee categorically agrees with the three themes of the report: ‘‘Speed and cycle 

221 

time are the most important metrics for managing software’’; ‘‘Software is made by people and for people, so digital talent matters’’; 

and ‘‘Software is different than hardware (and not all software is 

the same).’’ 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Notification of Navy procurement production disruptions 

(sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to require prime contractors of any Navy 

procurement program to report, within 15 calendar days of any 

contractor or subcontractor stop work order or within 15 days of a 

contractor or subcontractor manufacturing disruption that has 

lasted 15 calendar days, to the respective program manager and 

Navy technical authority. The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy to provide a quarterly notification of such disruptions to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee is concerned by the delay in reporting of recent 

stop work orders and other manufacturing disruptions to Navy program management officials. The committee notes that multiple 

shipbuilding programs have been negatively impacted by unacceptable delays in reporting such disruptions. The committee believes 

that more timely notifications of such disruptions will decrease the 

time required to initiate and complete corrective actions necessary 

to resume production. 

Modification to acquisition authority of the Commander of 

the United States Cyber Command (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92), which established the acquisition authority of the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, to change the 

applicability of the annual limit to new contract efforts. 

Prohibition on operation or procurement of foreign-made 

unmanned aircraft systems (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

operation or procurement of foreign-made unmanned aircraft systems by the Department of Defense. 

Prohibition on contracting with persons that have business 

operations with the Maduro regime (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from awarding contracts to certain persons 

and entities affiliated with the illegitimate Maduro regime of Venezuela. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of Defense efforts to combat human trafficking 

through procurement practices (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to report on the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
222 

ment of Defense’s efforts to combat trafficking in persons through 

procurement practices. 

Items of Special Interest 

Alternatives to cost or pricing data 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) produces and develops many goods and services outside of traditional 

commercial markets, often in situations where there is only one 

customer and one or few viable vendors. In the absence of market 

forces, the Department is forced to use other mechanisms to ensure 

that it is obtaining the best value and paying a fair price for these 

goods and services. This commonly requires the delivery of certified 

cost or pricing data from vendors to achieve this necessary goal. 

However, this creates a time and cost burden on both the vendors 

and the government customer, which in some cases slows procurement processes. Ultimately this leads to operational systems and 

technologies being behind the pace of global innovation and is unnecessarily expensive for the taxpayer. In addition, the government-unique activities associated with this practice often create a 

barrier to entry into the defense market for potential commercial 

and small business suppliers. 

The committee notes that there may be alternative practices that 

could speed the process of determining fair prices and best value 

for customers in the absence of a market but that these practices 

require research, development, prototyping, and testing before they 

can be employed at scale. The committee directs that the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering jointly 

develop a university research program, modeled on the current university basic research activities of the DOD, with experts in academia to explore and develop alternatives to certified cost or pricing data. The committee notes that these academic researchers 

should be partnered with the Defense Acquisition University and 

other DOD organizations to promote the sharing of relevant data 

and the transition of research products into practice. The committee further notes that the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund account is already authorized to fund research of this 

type and recommends the use of this funding to support these activities. The committee directs the Department to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees on activities to support 

this effort not later than February 1, 2020, as well as any research 

products that result from these activities over time. 

Annual report on denials of contracting officer data requests 

The committee is encouraged that, in response to recommendations from a 2019 Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General 

report on price reasonable determinations, the Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing and Contracting agreed to: (1) Update 

policy on reporting requirements for contractor denial of cost data 

and establish a framework for quarterly reporting on such denials; 

and (2) Recommend that a group of experts assess the data reported to identify contractors a high-risk for unreasonable pricing. 

223 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report detailing instances where potential contractors denied requests by the DOD to provide contracting officers 

with requested uncertified cost or pricing data to allow for the determination of fair and reasonable pricing for acquisitions. The report should contain at a minimum a summary of the individual 

cases in which contracting officers were denied requested data by 

potential contractors. The initial report shall be submitted not later 

than December 31, 2020. 

Appreciation for the work of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations 

The committee commends the work of the Advisory Panel on 

Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, established by 

section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee notes that, since 

the Panel was established, it has made 98 recommendations across 

3 report volumes and continues to identify areas where United 

States Code can be reorganized for clarity and efficiency. The Congress has enacted a number of the recommendations from the first 

two volumes in prior National Defense Authorization Acts. This 

committee continues to carefully consider the recommendations of 

the Panel. 

Army strategies to manage intellectual property 

The committee notes that the Army has recently approved a new 

intellectual property management policy that seeks to address the 

shortcomings of how the Army has managed intellectual property 

with previous acquisition programs. The committee believes that, 

as the Army pursues its major modernization priorities, it is important to appropriately determine rights and access related to intellectual property and technical data to facilitate the sustainment of 

these new systems for the next several years, and the committee 

encourages the Army to pursue innovative strategies to do so. 

Comptroller General assessment of Internet Protocol 

version four (IPv4) utilization 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees, no later than March 1, 2020, on the Department of Defense’s 

utilization of Internet Protocol version four (IPv4) addresses. The 

report’s elements shall include: (1) Actual utilization, comparing 

IPv4 addresses assigned vs. those being used; (2) Statutory, policy, 

and security requirements affecting the Department’s ability to 

grant or sell underutilized addresses to the private sector (whether 

due to underutilization or post-transition to Internet Protocol 

version six (IPv6)); (3) Status of transition from IPv4 to IPv6; and 

(4) Additional matters that the Comptroller General determines appropriate. 

224 

Comptroller General review of Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract 

The committee notes that the U.S. military has long relied on 

contractors to support deployed U.S. forces, especially under the 

Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), a contract which provides for food service, sanitation, billeting, maintenance, and power generation for military operations and associated 

civilian support. The Department has persistently faced challenges 

with such contracts, to include: limited insight into the nature and 

extent of reliance on contractors; cost and requirements growth; 

and military commanders’ inconsistent understanding of their roles 

and responsibilities in theater. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to assess the following: (1) What lessons the Department learned from prior LOGCAP contracts and how these lessons were incorporated into the requirements and acquisition strategy for LOGCAP V; (2) Whether the Department developed plans 

to transition services being provided under LOGCAP IV to the 

LOGCAP V contract and the sufficiency of those plans; (3) The 

Army’s construct for LOGCAP V planners and the extent to which 

it is sufficient; (4) The sufficiency of the Army’s plans to designate 

and train contracting officer representatives; and (5) Any other 

issues that the Comptroller General determines appropriate with 

respect to the LOGCAP program. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees not later 

than February 28, 2020, on the preliminary findings of this review 

and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on 

a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Contractor workplace safety 

The committee notes the September 2018 Department of Defense 

report titled ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and 

Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United 

States,’’ which cited diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages as risks and the corresponding need to expand certain domestic manufacturing to address these risks. 

The committee is therefore concerned by a February 2019 Government Accountability Office report, ‘‘Defense Contracting: Enhanced Information Needed on Contractor Workplace Safety’’ 

(GAO–19–235), which detailed violations of certain workplace safety and health regulations by Department contractors in high-risk 

industries, including construction and manufacturing. Among the 

recommendations were advising all contracting officials of the 

availability of data published by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration and exploring the feasibility of requiring a 

safety performance rating for contracts in high-risk industries. 

The committee strongly supports a thriving defense industrial 

base, especially in manufacturing, where the Department expects 

to see growth to address risks and objectives of the National Defense Strategy. Given that the Department agreed with the GAO 

recommendations, the committee expects the Department to fully 

and expeditiously implement them. 

225 

The committee further recommends that the Department explore 

other measures to ensure that data on contractors’ compliance with 

workplace safety and health regulations are available and assessed 

during the acquisition process in an efficient and effective manner. 

Implications of acquisition reform for the organic industrial 

base 

The committee notes that, in September 2018, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) released the report ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening 

the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain 

Resiliency of the United States.’’ The report stated that, while commercial industry is the dominant component of the industrial base, 

the DOD organic industrial base—composed of government-owned, 

government-operated maintenance depots, shipyards, and manufacturing arsenals—is critical to our defense. The report also noted 

that prior acquisition reforms have had unintended negative impacts on the DOD organic industrial base. 

To fully understand the impacts of these changes, the committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment, with inputs from the sustainment commands of the 

Services, to assess the effects that acquisition changes over the last 

5 years have had on the DOD organic industrial base. This assessment shall be provided to the congressional defense committees not 

later than February 1, 2020. 

Notifications related to exercising an option on a contract 

The committee observes that regulation requires the government, 

on an active contract, to notify the contractor if it will exercise an 

option on the contract 60 days prior to the exercise date. The committee is concerned that 60 days notice may create hardship for 

some contractors doing business with the Department of Defense 

and encourages the cognizant contracting official at the Department of Defense to the maximum extent practicable to notify the 

contractor whether or not the Department intends to exercise the 

option earlier than 60 days prior to the option exercise date. 

Optimizing processes and acquisition of contract writing capabilities 

The committee notes that significant direction was provided to 

the Department of Defense to rationalize the business portfolio 

area of contract-writing in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and the John S. McCain 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public 

Law 115–232). This direction included funding reductions, reporting requirements, and required commitments by the Services to reduce the number of contract-writing systems in use from 17 to 1 

by 2020. 

The committee further notes that, despite this direction, there 

are still two different solutions and three different contracting arrangements being pursued by the Department. The committee remains concerned about the inability of disparate acquisition strategies to leverage common requirements, commercial processes, and 

solutions for writing contracts. As such, elsewhere in this Act, the 

committee recommends a number of specific reductions in funds for 

226 

contract-writing systems to encourage the Department to complete 

the rationalization of contract-writing systems. 

Place of performance in Department of Defense contracts 

The committee is aware that contracts awarded by the Department of Defense sometimes include place of performance clauses 

that can be advantageous to areas that have higher costs and higher populations. To understand the logistical and national security 

necessity of these place of performance clauses, the committee directs the Chief Management Officer to commission a study that 

analyzes the number of contracts awarded that include place of 

performance clauses. Additionally, the study should include analysis of the labor, real estate, cost of living, contractor retention 

rates, and other financial costs and benefits of including such a requirement in Department of Defense contracts. 

Proper evaluation of past performance and experience of 

potential offerors 

The committee notes that changing business models and corporate practices have led to alternative ownership structures and 

partnership arrangements for potential and current defense contractors. The committee also notes that current acquisition regulations give the Department of Defense flexibility in evaluating past 

performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will 

perform major or critical aspects of requirements when such information is relevant to the acquisition. The committee, however, also 

recognizes that there are concerns about the consistency and clarity 

in how the Department, as well as other federal agencies, are considering the past performance and experience of parent, subsidiary, 

and sister organizations of firms, including those associated with 

Alaskan Native Corporation/Tribal/Native Hawaiian corporations, 

when soliciting and evaluating potential offers to meet federal requirements. 

The committee believes that providing additional guidance and 

training to contracting personnel to ensure that solicitations clearly 

state the extent to which and how the DOD will consider the past 

performance and experience of these sister organizations during 

the evaluation of an offeror’s bid will reduce miscommunication and 

frustration with the federal procurement process, lead to more informed selection of vendors, help establish more strategic relationships with high performing vendors, and support improved performance by contractors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to: (1) Develop policies to ensure that solicitations 

are clear and transparent; and (2) Provide training to its contracting personnel to ensure the proper consideration of the past 

performance and experience of predecessor companies, sister subsidiaries, and key personnel that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when soliciting and evaluating offers. 

Report on service contract management and oversight 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Chief Management Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and the Secretaries of the 

227 

military departments, to review current mechanisms for overseeing 

defense service contracts, including the service contract inventories, 

and to identify ways to update the approach to improve the management and oversight of service contracts. The committee notes 

that the Section 809 Panel ‘‘Report of the Advisory Panel on 

Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations’’ recommends 

that the Department of Defense center its service contracts reporting on broad strategic purposes, objectives, and key performance 

results of the contracts being assessed. 

The Department’s review shall leverage the expertise of the Chief 

Data Officer to ensure that the approaches identified align with 

and support the analytic capabilities of the Department of Defense. 

Further, the review shall ensure the implementation of continuous 

business process changes and supporting information technology 

investments to deploy and sustain a capability to continuously 

monitor, analyze, and oversee these types of contracts and associated spending. Finally, the Department’s review shall address how 

the identified approaches support the oversight, data analytics, and 

outcome measurements for service contracts specified in section 

2329 of title 10, United States Code. This report shall be submitted 

to the congressional defense committees no later than December 1, 

2019. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess the Department’s report and its proposed approach 

to determine the extent to which they have the potential to improve the Department’s management of service contracts. This assessment would consider prior reviews of the Department’s service 

contracts, including the service contract inventories. The Comptroller General shall report to the congressional defense committees 

no later than March 1, 2020, or 3 months after the Department’s 

report is submitted to Congress, whichever occurs later. 

Secure development operations software stacks 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has several 

programs and activities underway to explore the concepts, technologies, roles and responsibilities, and procedures associated with 

secure development operations or DevSecOps. The committee encourages the Department to continue these activities and, in doing 

so, recommends that the Secretary of Defense designate a single official responsible for coordinating these activities to identify best 

practices and recommend policy and guidance to unify the activities 

across the Department. 

Stakeholder engagement practices of the Defense Innovation Board 

The committee commends the Defense Innovation Board’s process for conducting its study on software acquisition and practices 

under section 872 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

2018 (Public Law 115–91). The committee notes the benefit of the 

Board’s process for identifying stakeholders and encouraging their 

active engagement in the Board’s work, to include: the formulation 

of working hypotheses; iteratively publishing draft content and 

white papers; exposing potential recommendations; encouraging 

meaningful public dialogue and enabling transparency; and 

228 

prioritizing content and recommendations for inclusion in the final 

report. This engagement resulted in a refined product whose premises had been tested and improved by a deep bench of knowledge 

both within and outside the Department of Defense. This yielded 

recommendations pertaining to Congress’ role that were relevant, 

actionable, and useful to this committee. 

Training of skilled technicians for the defense industrial 

base 

The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of Defense report ‘‘Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and 

Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United 

States’’ stated: ‘‘Without concerted action that provides both a 

ready workforce and a continuously charged pipeline of new employees, the U.S. will not be able to maintain the large, vibrant, 

and diverse machine tools sector needed to produce the required 

number and types of products when needed.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

develop a plan, cost estimate, and schedule for a pilot program to 

train skilled technicians for immediate placement in the Defense 

Industrial Base, including critical shipbuilding skills such as welding, metrology, quality assurance, machining, and additive manufacturing. The committee notes that these activities may benefit 

from partnering with State-level efforts to leverage investment and 

infrastructure in training and education and existing workforce development partnerships with the Defense Industrial Base as well 

as relevant federal programs, such as the National Network of 

Manufacturing Institutes and the Department of Defense Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program. The committee directs the Secretary to provide an annotated briefing on the plan, 

cost estimate, and schedule for a potential pilot program to the 

Senate Armed Services Committee no later than September 15, 

2020. 

Uncertified cost data 

The committee notes that the Truth in Negotiations Act authorizes the contracting officer to require that other than certified data 

be submitted when deemed necessary to determine price reasonableness. Contracting officers have this authority even as it relates 

to commercial items. The committee also notes that the Congress 

strengthened the Department of Defense’s ability to get uncertified 

data in section 808 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) by directing that the Federal Acquisition Regulation be amended to provide that a contractor’s ‘‘compliance with a requirement to submit 

data for a contract or subcontract in accordance with section 

2306a(d)(l) of title 10, United States Code . . . shall be a condition 

for the offeror to be eligible to enter into the contract or subcontract, subject to such exceptions as the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council determines appropriate.’’ 

Other statutory authorities are available to the Department of 

Defense to ensure price reasonableness, including the Defense Production Act (Public Law 81–774), as amended, and section 2304(b) 

of title 10, United States Code, which authorizes the head of an 

229 

agency to exclude a particular source in order to establish an alternative source of supply if doing so would ‘‘likely result in reduced 

overall costs for such procurement, or for any anticipated procurement, of property or services.’’ The committee directs the Department to use all applicable authorities to protect the taxpayer from 

predatory practices by companies that refuse to provide data to establish price reasonableness. The committee further encourages the 

Department to take all steps necessary to ensure that the acquisition workforce is sufficiently trained on and empowered to use 

available authorities to protect the Department and taxpayers from 

price gouging. 

Wider adoption of model contracts for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program awards 

The committee notes that the Air Force is using model contracts 

and ‘‘pitch days’’’ for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

program awards. This simplifies and accelerates awards in ways 

that are critical to small businesses. The committee encourages 

other military services and offices awarding SBIR contracts to consider similar approaches to improve efficiency. 

(231) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 

Matters 

Headquarters activities of the Department of Defense matters (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection 921(b) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to repeal the 

certification of cost savings under that subsection and to require 

periodic assessments from the Secretary of Defense, through the 

Chief Management Officer, on enterprise business operations of the 

Department of Defense and efforts taken to minimize duplication 

of efforts and to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in mission 

execution. The first such assessment would be required not later 

than January 1, 2020, with subsequent assessments to occur not 

less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to report, not 

later than January 1, 2020, on the total number of civilian and 

military employees assigned or employed in the Office of the Chief, 

National Guard Bureau, and on the National Guard Joint Staff, together with a recommendation on the number of employees necessary to execute the missions and functions of the National Guard 

Bureau and National Guard Joint Staff. 

The provision would repeal certain outdated provisions of law 

and would further amend sections 143, 155, 7014, 8014, and 9014 

of title 10, United States Code, to provide modest increases in the 

statutory caps on the number of personnel that may be employed 

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the 

Offices of the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and 

Secretary of the Air Force, respectively. 

Finally, the provision would clarify that the requirements of section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92), relative to Major Headquarters Activity 

spending, sunset at the end of fiscal year 2019. 

Responsibility of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 

and Sustainment for Procurement Technical Assistance 

Cooperative Agreement Program (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, rather than the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, responsible 

for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 

Program. 

232 

Return to Chief Information Officer of the Department of 

Defense of responsibility for business systems and related matters (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would return the responsibilities for business systems from the Chief Management Officer back to the Chief Information Officer and would realign the 

Chief Data Officer to report to the Chief Information Officer instead of the Chief Management Officer. This realignment would facilitate the Department of Defense’s implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 

115–435) and ensure the Chief Data Officer’s visibility into all data 

across the enterprise. The provision would further explicitly provide that the Chief Data Officer has access to all Department of 

Defense data. 

Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

designation of a general or flag officer of the Armed Forces to serve 

within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy as 

the Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and, concurrently, as 

the Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor. As a result of the level of responsibility and complexity of the duties associated with these 

functions, the committee recommends that the military individual 

fulfilling these two roles be designated from among qualified commissioned regular officers of the Armed Forces in the grade of 

major general or rear admiral. The committee believes that Department of Defense cyber policy is uniquely advanced through the coupling of civilian and military expertise at the Office of the Secretary of Defense-level. Finally, the committee recognizes the critical work of the Principal Cyber Advisor, the Deputy Principal 

Cyber Advisor, and its cross-functional team and believes that this 

effective model should be sustained. 

Limitation on the transfer of Strategic Capabilities Office 

(sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit any 

reorganization to the Department of Defense (DOD) that would impact the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) until the Chief Management Officer provides to the congressional defense committees 

a report assessing the impacts of such an organizational change. 

Specifically, the report shall assess at a minimum the following options: (1) Transferring the SCO so that the Director of the SCO reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment; (2) Maintaining the current arrangement such that 

the Director of the SCO reports directly to the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering; and (3) Transferring the 

SCO to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

The report should include the justification for any organizational 

changes and detail how specific changes would impact SCO’s ability 

to execute its traditional missions, including: (1) Responding to 

combatant commanders’ critical needs, (2) Augmenting cross-DOD 

efforts with respect to developing strategic capabilities; (3) Developing new and innovative ways to counter advanced threats; and 

233 

(4) Partnering with and responding to senior leadership across the 

DOD. 

Subtitle B—Organization and Management of Other 

Department of Defense Offices and Elements 

Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for Energy, Installations, and Environment (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3016(a), 5016(a), and 8016(a) of title 10, United States Code, 

to require that each military department maintain an assistant 

secretary for energy, installations, and environment. 

The committee believes that any person nominated for these positions should have relevant experience in the energy, installations, 

and environment portfolio. 

Repeal of conditional designation of Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal Corps as a basic branch of the Army (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), which established the conditional designation 

of explosive ordnance disposal as a basic branch of the Army. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Exclusion from limitations on personnel in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense headquarters of fellows appointed under the John S. McCain 

Defense Fellows Program (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 932(f)(3) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to stipulate 

that an individual appointed to a fellowship under this section 

shall not count against the limitation on the number of Office of 

the Secretary of Defense personnel in section 143 of title 10, United 

States Code, or any similar limitation in law on the number of personnel in headquarters of the Department of Defense. 

Report on resources to implement the civilian casualty policy of the Department of Defense (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the resources necessary to fulfill the requirements of section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) over the 

future years defense plan. 

Items of Special Interest 

Cross-functional teams 

The committee notes that section 911 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) expressly empowered and directed Department of Defense (DOD) 

leadership to establish cross-functional teams (CFTs) and that the 

234 

law defined the characteristics and authorities common to such 

teams. The committee understands, however, that the DOD has not 

established a single CFT under that law and that it is severely delinquent in meeting the provision’s requirements and milestones. 

Although DOD components have established various task forces 

and working groups, including the Close Combat Lethality Task 

Force and the Protecting Critical Technology Task Force, none of 

these entities were established under section 911 authorities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee, not later than February 1, 2020, an explanation as to why section 911 authorities have not been utilized to 

date. 

Remote and isolated research and testing installations 

The committee recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering and the Chief Management Officer 

jointly establish a working group to identify and develop solutions 

to immediate and long-term programmatic challenges facing remote 

and isolated installations. The effort should be focused on research 

and testing organizations and address issues that would have negative impacts on innovation, streamlined and successful development and acquisition efforts, and support for National Defense 

Strategy goals. This working group should provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees no later than December 1, 2019. 

The committee notes that a number of organizations that perform critical research and testing missions are located on installations that are remote and isolated from population centers and 

have limited access to goods, services, and technical talent. For example, the committee notes that both the Army’s Dugway Proving 

Grounds and the Navy’s Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation 

Center face these types of challenges while attempting to maintain 

robust test capabilities to support the National Defense Strategy. 

Remote and isolated installations face challenges in maintaining 

adequate government and support contractor personnel and capabilities and often experience negative impacts when attempting to 

implement government-wide, Department of Defense-wide, or service-wide policies and regulations that are designed for more traditional and larger installations and not always appropriate or applicable to the unique circumstances of these smaller installations. 

Secretariat for Special Operations 

The committee strongly supports continued efforts to implement 

section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to enable greater oversight of and 

advocacy for special operations forces by the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD 

SOLIC). While important progress has been made in implementing 

these reforms, the Department has been unable to fully realize the 

Congress’ intent for the ASD SOLIC to act as the ‘‘service secretary-like’’ civilian counterpart to the Commander of U.S. Special 

Operations Command more than 2 years after the law’s passage. 

In particular, the committee is concerned that the Department of 

Defense has failed to establish clear timelines for the implementation of tasks necessary to fully implement the ASD SOLIC reforms. 

235 

Additionally, the committee is concerned that sufficient efforts have 

not been made to update and clarify Departmental guidance to accurately reflect the ASD SOLIC’s enhanced role with respect to the 

oversight and advocacy of special operations forces. 

Lastly, while the committee is encouraged by efforts to more adequately staff the ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special Operations, 

the committee is concerned that new personnel actions are not adequately tied to a strategic workforce plan, potentially leading to the 

hiring of staff that may not have the requisite experience or may 

be serving only in a temporary capacity. The committee is also concerned that the title and grade of personnel leading the day-to-day 

operations of the Secretariat for Special Operations may not be 

commensurate with their responsibilities. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to address 

these issues expeditiously and would welcome legislative or other 

proposals to remove any remaining challenges to full implementation of the ASD SOLIC reforms. 

(237) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal year 2020 

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. 

Modification of required elements of annual reports on 

emergency and extraordinary expenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 127 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the annual reporting requirement. 

Inclusion of military construction projects in annual reports 

on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and the 

combatant commands (sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 222a of title 10, United States Code, to require the Services 

and combatant commands to submit separate lists of unfunded priorities for military construction. The provision would require the 

lists to be in priority order. 

Prohibition on delegation of responsibility for submittal to 

Congress of Out-Year Unconstrained Total Munitions 

Requirements and Out-Year Inventory numbers (sec. 

1004) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 222c of title 10, United States Code, by prohibiting the chief 

of staff of each of the Services from delegating the munitions reporting requirement established in that section outside the service 

concerned. The committee notes that, for the fiscal year 2020 budget submission, the Joint Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition and Sustainment delivered the required report on 

behalf of the Services, despite statutory requirements, and as a result have failed to meet the requirement in a timely manner. 

Element in annual reports on the Financial Improvement 

and Audit Remediation Plan on activities with respect 

to classified programs (sec. 1005) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 240b(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to include audit reVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
238 

sults and activities for classified programs in the Financial Improvement and Audit Remediation Plan. The plan shall remain unclassified and include a classified annex, if required. 

Modification of semiannual briefings on the consolidated 

corrective action plan of the Department of Defense for 

financial management information (sec. 1006) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 240b(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to track the costs of the audit 

corrective action plans. 

Update of authorities and renaming of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 

1007) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to rename the Defense 

Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Account in recognition that it is funded by appropriations. 

Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities 

Modification of authority to support a unified counterdrug 

and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as most recently 

amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), to modify authorized assistance to the Government of Colombia to address the emergence 

of new threats. 

The committee strongly supports the partnership between the 

United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable security 

gains that the Government of Colombia has achieved over nearly 

2 decades and its ongoing contributions to regional security. The 

committee believes that an enduring security relationship between 

the United States and Colombia is essential to sustaining and 

building on these gains and supporting the successful implementation of the 2016 peace accord. However, the committee notes with 

concern reports of record high yields of coca and the emergence of 

other illegally armed groups, ranging from terrorist organizations 

to drug trafficking organizations, that threaten peace, stability, and 

security in Colombia and the broader region. In light of the continuing threat posed by drug trafficking and illegal armed groups, 

it is imperative that the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) authorities to engage with and provide support to the Government of Colombia are reflective of the evolving nature of the security environment. In particular, the splintering of armed groups since the 2016 

peace agreement poses challenges to the applicability of the existing DOD authority to provide support to the Government of Colombia. The committee intends for the modifications contained in this 

provision to ensure that United States support to the Government 

of Colombia remains relevant and effective against these serious 

239 

and evolving threats. Further, the committee notes that the modifications contained in this provision would not alter the prohibition 

of U.S. persons’ engaging in combat operations. 

Two-year extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting 

counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years the authority established in section 1022(b) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108– 

136). 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Modification of authority to purchase vessels using funds in 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2218(f)(3) of title 10, United States Code, in subparagraph (E) 

by striking ‘‘10 new sealift vessels’’ and inserting ‘‘10 new sealift 

vessels, auxiliary vessels, or a combination of such vessels’’. 

Senior Technical Authority for each naval vessel class (sec. 

1017) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

designation of a Senior Technical Authority for each class of naval 

vessels. 

The committee notes the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report on June 6, 2018, titled ‘‘Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for Future 

Investments’’ (GAO–18–238SP), which assessed Navy shipbuilding 

performance over the past 10 years and concluded that ‘‘[the Navy] 

has received $24 billion more in funding than originally planned 

but has 50 fewer ships in its inventory today, as compared to the 

goals it first established in [2007.] . . . Ship costs exceed[ed] estimates by over $11 billion during this time frame.’’ 

This report found that lead ships in new classes of naval vessels 

regularly failed to meet expectations. For the 8 most recently delivered lead combatant ships (CVN–78, DDG–1000, LCS–1, LCS–2, 

LHA–6, LPD–17, SSN–774, and SSN–775), the report found that: 

a total of $8 billion more than the initial budget was required to 

construct these ships; each lead ship experienced cost growth of at 

least 10 percent, and 3 lead ships exceeded their initial budgets by 

80 percent or more; each lead ship was delivered to the fleet at 

least 6 months late with 5 lead ships delayed by more than 2 years; 

and most lead ships had dozens of uncorrected deficiencies when 

accepted by the Navy. 

As this report highlights, a key step in successful shipbuilding 

programs is technology development: the maturation of key technologies into actual system prototypes and demonstration of them 

in a realistic environment prior to the detailed design of the lead 

ship. This type of technology maturation was not performed effectively on the CVN–78, DDG–1000, LCS–1, LCS–2, and LPD–17 

programs. 

240 

The committee also notes that the Navy is planning the largest 

fleet expansion in over 30 years with several costly and complex acquisitions planned for the coming years, including the Columbia- class ballistic missile submarines and new classes of guided missile 

frigates and fast attack submarines. The Chief of Naval Operations 

has also called for the first Large Surface Combatant, Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle, Future Small Auxiliary, and Future 

Large Auxiliary (CHAMP) to each be on contract in 2023. Additionally, large and extra large undersea vehicles are projected to transition from research and development to procurement within the 

next decade. 

While recognizing the importance of modernizing the fleet to face 

growing threats, the committee finds the Comptroller General’s 

findings to be compelling and believes that additional actions are 

needed to improve shipbuilding cost, schedule, and performance 

outcomes, particularly of lead ships. 

If such outcomes are not improved, the committee is concerned 

that the trends of the past 10 years will continue and that the 

Navy battle force could lack the capability and capacity necessary 

to prevail in great power competition as described in the National 

Defense Strategy. 

Accordingly, this provision would establish a Senior Technical 

Authority (STA) for each class of naval vessels. Each STA would 

be responsible for establishing, monitoring, and approving technical 

standards, tools, and processes for the class of naval vessels for 

which he or she is designated under this section in conformance 

with applicable Department of Defense and Department of the 

Navy policies, requirements, architectures, and standards. 

In addition, beginning on October 1, 2020, funds authorized to be 

appropriated for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, could not be 

obligated on the lead vessel in a new class of naval vessels until 

the Secretary of the Navy has submitted a certification containing 

information from the STA on such class of vessels. 

The committee recognizes that implementation of this provision 

may require additional government employees, including senior executives, in the Naval Systems Engineering Directorate of the 

Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05) and would support such increases as may be warranted. 

Permanent authority for sustaining operational readiness of 

Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployment (sec. 

1018) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8680 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the Secretary 

of the Navy with additional flexibility to maintain Littoral Combat 

Ships (LCS) by allowing government or contractor personnel to conduct maintenance on deployed LCS vessels regardless of ship location. 

This provision would codify the authorities successfully employed 

in a pilot program authorized by section 1025 of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

The pilot program was conducted to evaluate maintenance options for LCS vessels on extended deployments from December 

241 

2014 to September 2016. The Navy’s assessment of the pilot program, which was submitted in a March 2017 report to the Congress, stated, ‘‘Based on the pilot program results, cost savings are 

expected to be notable. Even more importantly, the flexibility to 

provide timely maintenance in support of schedule changes and 

mission execution is crucial to long-term success of the LCS 

Fleet[.]’’ 

The committee concurs with the Navy’s assessment of the pilot 

program and recommends codifying the associated authorities in 

title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

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

1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2020, 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, 2020, 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) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2020, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to transfer or release individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. 

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 2020 the prohibition on the use of funds provided to the 

Department of Defense: (1) To close or abandon United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo; (2) To relinquish control of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or (3) 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, which 

242 

modification would constructively close 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 emergency or critical medical treatment not available at Guantanamo. 

Chief Medical Officer at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1026) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

establishment of a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to conduct oversight of 

medical care provided to individuals detained at Guantanamo to 

ensure that such medical care meets the standard of care as defined in the provision. The CMO would report directly to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and hold a grade 

not below that of colonel, or captain in the Navy. The CMO would 

make medical determinations, including: (1) Decisions regarding 

assessment, diagnosis, and treatment; and (2) Determinations concerning medical accommodations to living conditions and operating 

procedures for detention facilities. In the event of the commander 

of Joint Task Force Guantanamo’s declination to follow a determination of the CMO, the provision would require the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to 

jointly resolve the matter of such determination within 7 days of 

receipt of the notification of such declination. Additionally, the provision would authorize the CMO to secure access from the Department of Defense to any individual, information, or assistance that 

the CMO considers necessary to carry out the duties of the position. 

The committee believes that detainees at Guantanamo should receive timely access to appropriate medical care. The committee is 

concerned that medical providers at Guantanamo may not have access to information in certain medical records that would inform diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions of detainees. The committee believes that this provision would help to ensure that detainees receive timely assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of 

their medical conditions. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Clarification of authority of military commissions under 

chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to punish 

contempt (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to permit 

a judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review 

or a military judge detailed to a military commission to punish conVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
243 

tempt. The provision would also provide that the punishment for 

contempt may not exceed confinement for 30 days, a fine of $1,000, 

or both and would establish the conditions under which punishment for contempt is reviewable. 

Comprehensive Department of Defense policy on collective 

self-defense (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Defense to promulgate a comprehensive written policy, 

detailing all aspects of the Department of Defense’s approach to authorizing and providing collective self-defense by any member or 

unit of the U.S. Armed Forces to designated foreign nationals, their 

facilities, and their property, and to provide such comprehensive 

written policy to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense defines collective self-defense as the defense of designated non-U.S. 

military forces, irregular partner forces, and/or their property from 

a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Furthermore, the committee understands that the Department views collective self-defense as an extension of U.S. unit self-defense, regardless of whether U.S. personnel or facilities are threatened themselves. 

The committee unquestionably supports the inherent right of 

U.S. military forces to defend themselves whenever and wherever 

they are deployed. However, the committee seeks greater understanding of the legal and policy basis for the provision of collective 

self-defense to designated foreign nationals, their facilities, and 

their property. This is especially true in situations in which U.S. 

personnel and facilities are not directly threatened. The committee 

believes that such issues merit detailed review by the Department 

and the promulgation of a comprehensive written policy to ensure 

appropriate clarity. 

Oversight of Department of Defense execute orders (sec. 

1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, except in extraordinary circumstances, to provide the congressional defense committees with an execute order 

approved by the Secretary of Defense or a combatant commander 

for review within 30 days of receiving a written request from the 

Chairman or Ranking Member of any such committee. 

Prohibition on ownership or trading of stocks in certain 

companies by Department of Defense officers and employees (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit Department of Defense officials who participated personally and substantially in an acquisition valued in excess of $10,000,000 and occupy a position on the Executive Schedule, are a member of the 

Senior Executive Service, or are a General or Flag Officer or who 

served as program manager, deputy program manager, procuring 

contracting officer, administrative contracting officer, source selection authority, member of a source selection evaluation board, or 

chief of a financial or technical evaluation team for a contract in 

244 

excess of $10.0 million from owning or trading a publicly traded 

stock of a company that, during the preceding calendar year, received more than $1.0 billion in revenue from the Department of 

Defense, including through contracts with the Department. 

The provision would further provide that no officer or employee 

of the Department of Defense may own or trade a publicly traded 

stock of a company that is a contractor or subcontractor of the Department, if the Standards of Conduct Office of the Office of the 

General Counsel of the Department of Defense determines that the 

value of the stock may be directly or indirectly influenced by any 

official act of that officer or employee. 

Any official who knowingly fails to comply with these requirements would be subject to administrative action by the Secretary 

of Defense. The definition of publicly traded stock does not included 

a widely-held investment fund, for purposes of this provision. 

Policy regarding the transition of data and applications to 

the cloud (sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief Information and Chief Data Officers of the Department of 

Defense to develop and implement a policy relating to the transition of data and applications to the cloud under the Department’s 

cloud strategy. 

Modernization of inspection authorities applicable to the 

National Guard and extension of inspection authority to 

the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 1036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 105 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to conduct inspections to determine 

whether units and members of the Army National Guard and Air 

Force National Guard comply with Federal law and policy applicable to the National Guard. 

Enhancement of authorities on forfeiture of Federal benefits by the National Guard (sec. 1037) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 108 of title 32, United States Code, to provide that the availability of Federal funds provided to the National Guard of individual States is contingent upon compliance with Federal law and 

policy applicable to the National Guard. The provision would also 

authorize the President to withdraw Federal recognition of National Guard units and members for failure to comply with Federal 

law and policy and would authorize the President to bar units and 

individuals from receiving Federal funds if the unit or individuals 

fail to comply with Federal law and policy. 

Modernization of authorities on property and fiscal officers 

of the National Guard (sec. 1038) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 708 of title 32, United States Code, to require the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau, subject to the approval of the secretary of 

the military department concerned, to assign, designate, or detail 

245 

property and fiscal officers for each State, each territory, and the 

District of Columbia. 

Limitation on placement by the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness of work with federally 

funded research and development centers (sec. 1039) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness from placing any work with a federally funded research and development 

center (FFRDC) until a report containing a list of all studies, reports, and other analyses being undertaken for the Under Secretary is submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Federally funded research and development centers are closely 

monitored by the Congress due to their unique access to sensitive, 

pre-decisional government information. Every year, the Department of Defense must submit a report outlining the number of staff 

years of technical effort and funding allocated to each FFRDC. In 

fiscal year 2017, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness spent in excess of $50 million on FFRDC products. 

In performing its oversight role over the Department of Defense, 

the committee frequently receives pre-decisional, sensitive, and 

confidential information. For hardware acquisition, the committee 

reviews analyses of alternatives and requirements documents to 

determine whether a particular acquisition strategy is appropriate. 

For personnel management, the committee is entitled to similar information related to assessments of possible policy decisions. 

The committee emphasizes the continued importance of FFRDC 

analyses. The limitation included in this provision is not intended 

to harm or otherwise threaten any particular FFRDC. 

Termination of requirement for Department of Defense facility access clearances for joint ventures composed of 

previously-cleared entities (sec. 1040) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

requirement for joint ventures that are composed entirely of entities that already have been granted facility clearances to obtain an 

additional clearance for the venture. 

Designation of Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Ports 

(sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commanding General of the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard, and the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees evaluating 

potential sites for one or more strategic ports in the Arctic region. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to designate one or more ports as Department of Defense Strategic Arctic 

Ports not later than 90 days after the submission of the report. 

246 

Extension of National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the termination of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence to March 1, 2021. The provision also modifies the due date 

of the initial report to not later than August 1, 2019, requires two 

interim reports that shall be submitted not later than December 1, 

2019, and December 1, 2020, and requires a final report that shall 

be submitted not later than March 1, 2021. 

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup 

(sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Secretary of State, for use by 

the United States Agency for International Development, funds to 

be used for the Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup. 

Limitation on use of funds to house children separated from 

parents (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to house a 

child separated from a parent. 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports 

Modification of annual reporting requirements on defense 

manpower (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 115a of title 10, United States Code, to rename, change the 

due date of, and modify the elements of the Defense Manpower Requirements Report. The provision would also require that the (renamed) Defense Manpower Profile Report be delivered to the Congress each year by April 1. Additionally, the provision would repeal 

reporting requirements related to contractor personnel, major military force unit justifications, support and overhead manpower functions, overseas manpower, medical personnel, and the military 

technician program. Finally, the provision would set separate due 

dates for reporting requirements related to major Department of 

Defense headquarters activities and the diversity of the Armed 

Forces. 

Report on Department of Defense efforts to implement a 

force planning process in support of implementation of 

the 2018 National Defense Strategy (sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to provide a report, not later 

than February 1, 2020, on Department of Defense efforts to institute a force planning process that supports the implementation of 

the National Defense Strategy. 

The National Defense Strategy asserts that the U.S. military advantage with respect to strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation has been eroding. The 

strategy concludes that the Department must pursue ‘‘urgent 

change at significant scale’’ to avoid a joint force that is irrelevant 

247 

to the threats it will face. The Department must make difficult 

choices to prioritize rapid adaptation of the joint force to meet 

these challenges. Furthermore, the lack of a rigorous analytical 

force planning process that includes joint analytical capability 

makes it difficult to overcome the interests of the Services in protecting their force structure equities. 

Key products of the force planning process include concepts of operations that the Services can use to help evaluate their individual 

force structure requirements. The National Defense Strategy Commission report highlights that ‘‘[o]perational concepts constitute an 

essential link between strategic objectives and the capability and 

budgetary priorities needed to advance them.’’ The commission concluded, ‘‘Unfortunately, the innovative operational concepts we 

need do not currently appear to exist.’’ 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

made three recommendations in a March 2019 report titled ‘‘Revised Analytic Approach Needed to Support Force Structure Decision-Making’’ (GAO–19–385) to improve the Department’s analytic 

approach to force planning: (1) Determine the analytic products 

needed at the right level of detail; (2) The Secretary of Defense 

should ensure that specific guidance requiring the Services to explore a range of innovative force structure approaches is given; and 

(3) The Secretary of Defense should establish an approach for conducting joint analyses in addition to current disparate service-specific analyses. 

The committee is concerned that an anemic force planning process that does not provide a rigorous analytical basis to evaluate 

and prioritize force structure approaches will at worst preclude successful implementation of the National Defense Strategy and will 

at best make the process inefficient. 

Extension of annual reports on civilian casualties in connection with United States military operations (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2025, the reporting requirement established 

by section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

Report on joint force plan for implementation of strategies 

of the Department of Defense for the Arctic (sec. 1054) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with Secretaries of the military departments, to submit a joint force plan for implementing the 

Department of Defense’s December 2016 Report to Congress on the 

Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests in 

the Arctic Region and the updated Arctic strategy to improve and 

enhance joint operations, which was mandated in the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232). 

Report on use of Northern Tier bases in implementation of 

Arctic strategy of the United States (sec. 1055) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional deVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
248 

fense committees on the use of bases in northern latitudes, including Northern Tier bases, for implementing the recommendations in 

the December 2016 ‘‘Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect 

United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region’’ and 

the updated Arctic strategy required to be submitted to the congressional defense committees under section 1071 of the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232). 

Report on the Department of Defense plan for mass-casualty 

disaster response operations in the Arctic (sec. 1056) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to submit a report on the plan of the Department of 

Defense for assisting mass-casualty disaster response operations in 

the Arctic. 

Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation 

of retired general or flag officers by foreign governments for Emoluments Clause purposes (sec. 1057) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 908 of title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretaries 

of the military departments to submit annually to appropriate committees and Members of Congress a joint report enumerating each 

approval issued during the preceding year for a retired general or 

flag officer to accept civil employment or compensation for which 

the consent of Congress is required by the last paragraph of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution, related to acceptance of 

emoluments, offices, or titles from a foreign government. The provision would require the first report to cover the 5-year period preceding the year in which the report is submitted. 

Transmittal to Congress of requests for assistance received 

by the Department of Defense from other departments 

(sec. 1058) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to transmit electronically requests for assistance received from the Department of Homeland Security or the 

Department of Health and Human Services to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 

later than 7 calendar days after receiving those requests. The provision also requires the Secretary to transmit any responses to 

such requests. 

Semiannual report on Consolidated Adjudication Facility of 

the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency 

(sec. 1059) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

less frequently than semi-annually until the Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) determines 

that a steady-state level has been achieved for the Consolidated 

Adjudication Facility of the Agency, the Director to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report on inventory and timeliness metrics relating to such facility. The committee notes that 

249 

elsewhere in this Act is a recommended increase of $10.0 million 

to support the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the DCSA. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on postgovernment employment of former Department of Defense officials (sec. 1060) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to initiate a review, not 

later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, updating the information and findings contained in the Government 

Accountability Office report titled ‘‘Defense Contracting: Post-Government Employment of Former DOD Officials Needs Greater 

Transparency’’ (GAO–08–485). 

Subtitle G—Treatment of Contaminated Water Near Military 

Installations 

Treatment of contaminated water near military installations 

(secs. 1071–1075) 

The committee recommends a series of provisions (secs. 1071– 

1075) that would allow the Secretaries of the military departments 

to provide uncontaminated water sources or to treat water contaminated with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances if the 

water is used for agricultural purposes leading to products destined 

for human consumption. Additionally, these provisions would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire real property that 

has shown signs of contamination from perfluorooctanoic and 

perfluorooctane sulfonate. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Revision to authorities relating to mail service for members 

of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilians overseas (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3401 of title 39, United States Code, to clarify that ActiveDuty servicemembers and Department of Defense civilian employees providing support to military operations are authorized to mail 

personal correspondence at no cost when deployed for a contingency 

operation in an area designated by the President. The provision 

would also extend the free mail program to all hospitalized 

servicemembers wounded in a designated area. Finally, the provision would allow certain mail between military post offices or from 

a military post office to a point of entry into the United States to 

be transported by surface shipment. 

Access to and use of military post offices by United States 

citizens employed overseas by the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization who perform functions in support of military operations of the Armed Forces (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 406 of title 39, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of 

Defense to authorize the use of military post offices in locations 

outside the United States by citizens of the United States who are 

250 

employed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and who perform functions in support of the Armed Forces. 

Guarantee of residency for spouses of members of uniformed services (sec. 1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Title 

VI of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (Public Law 108–189; 50 

U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) to allow military spouses to use the same residences as their servicemembers for any purpose, regardless of the 

date on which the marriage occurred. 

Extension of requirement for briefings on the national biodefense strategy (sec. 1084) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1086(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) by extending to March 1, 2025, 

the requirement for annual briefings on the status and implementation plan of the National Biodefense Strategy. 

The committee recognizes the broad spectrum of stakeholders in 

the biodefense sector and directs the Secretary of Defense to solicit 

and consider input from these stakeholders as it develops and implements the National Biodefense Strategy. Stakeholders include 

private industry partners responsible for the development and production of medical countermeasures, experts with relevant expertise in biological and emerging infectious diseases, State and local 

public health departments, and other organizations, as appropriate. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of Department of Defense investments in biodefense. This review shall include assessment of historical funding levels, an analysis of investments in research and 

development, and an analysis of investments in procurement. The 

Comptroller General shall provide a briefing on the preliminary 

findings to the congressional defense committees not later than 

March 1, 2020, with a final report to be provided at a mutually 

agreed upon time. 

Extension of National Commission on Military Aviation 

Safety (sec. 1085) 

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the due 

date of the report of the National Commission on Military Aviation 

Safety by 9 months to December 1, 2020. The committee believes 

that the Secretary of Defense should take all appropriate actions 

to increase aircraft maintenance availability and pilot training and 

proficiency to ensure the highest levels of flight safety. The committee is concerned that the current due date would not afford the 

commission the time needed to fully examine and make recommendations regarding military mishaps. 

Items of Special Interest 

Allocation of Military Forces 

The committee notes, and in general concurs with, the concerns 

of the 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission, which was 

charged with reviewing the National Defense Strategy and making 

251 

recommendations to Congress. Specifically, the Commission raised 

significant concerns about the current state of civilian-military relationships, particularly in the decision-making process for allocating military forces. As the Commission states, ‘‘Put bluntly, allocating priority-and allocating forces-across theaters of warfare is 

not solely a military matter. It is an inherently political-military 

task, decision authority for which is the proper competency and responsibility of America’s civilian leaders.’’ The Commission further 

recommends that, ‘‘It is critical that DoD—and Congress—reverse 

the unhealthy trend in which decision-making is drifting away 

from civilian leaders on issues of national importance.’’ 

The principle of civilian control of the Armed Forces is the bedrock of civilian-military relations, and it is one of the defining tenets of our democracy. While this committee has previously supported enhancing the responsibilities and functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we underscore that the Chairman 

serves in an advisory role to the President and the Secretary of Defense and remains outside the chain of command. Therefore, the 

committee restates that it is appropriate and necessary that the decision-making authority for force allocation resides with the civilian 

leadership of the Department of Defense and notes the requirement 

elsewhere in this Act to reestablish a more robust and analytically 

sound force planning process to support that decision-making. 

Assessment of the Requirement for a Strategic Arctic Port 

The Committee notes that the report titled ‘‘Department of Defense Assessment of Requirement for a Strategic Arctic Port,’’ 

which was mandated in section 1095 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 114–840) and delivered to the congressional defense committees in early 2018, concluded that, ‘‘existing [Department of Defense] infrastructure in the 

[Arctic] region is adequate to meet its current operational requirements.’’ The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to update 

the committee on whether the conclusion of this report has 

changed. 

Assignment of responsibility for the Arctic to a deputy assistant secretary of defense 

The committee notes that 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 and 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, harvesting of other 

natural resources in the exclusive economic zone of the United 

States, and other potential threats or challenges to United States 

sovereignty. 

Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense 

to assign to an existing deputy assistant secretary of defense the 

primary responsibility for the Arctic region, in order to coordinate 

the formation of Arctic defense policy with relevant Department of 

Defense entities. 

252 

The committee also notes that a similar request was made in the 

Senate report accompanying S. 2987 (S. Rept. 115–262) of the John 

S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2019; the Department has yet to act on this request. 

Briefing on civilian casualties 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide, not 

later than August 1, 2019, a briefing to the Senate Armed Services 

Committee on the most recent annual report on civilian casualties 

in connection with United States military operations that has been 

submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–91), 

as most recently amended by section 1062 of the John S. McCain 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public 

Law 115–232), which shall include, at a minimum, a discussion of 

the roles of manned and unmanned aircraft in operations that were 

confirmed to have resulted in civilian casualties and lessons 

learned from such operations. 

Combatant command pandemic planning 

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 31, 2021, on efforts at each combatant command for 

pandemic planning. This report shall be coordinated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as other appropriate federal agencies that the combatant commanders deem appropriate. 

Eliminating delays in initiating support to Government Accountability Office audits 

The ability of the Congress to conduct effective oversight of federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD), is enhanced through the timely completion of Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits. Longstanding GAO protocols, coordinated with the DOD and other federal agencies and updated most 

recently in 2019, establish general principles governing GAO’s relationships with audited agencies. These protocols require agencies to 

assist the GAO in scheduling an initial meeting, called an entrance 

conference, within 14 calendar days of receiving notice of a new 

GAO audit. This initial meeting allows the GAO to communicate 

the initial objectives for its audit, and enables keys agencies to task 

points of contact to support GAO’s work. The DOD has not been 

meeting the protocol target for the timely conduct of entrance conferences, and a number of entrance conferences and the associated 

audits have been unduly delayed. 

Therefore, for a 1-year period, beginning on October 1, 2019, the 

committee directs the GAO and the DOD to provide quarterly updates to congressional defense committees on the extent to which 

entrance conferences with the DOD are being scheduled in accordance with GAO protocols and held in a timely manner. 

GAO’s update shall include the following information for the 

prior 3-month period: (1) The number of new GAO audits for which 

the GAO requested an entrance conference with the DOD during 

the period; (2) The unique identifier for each audit for which an enVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
253 

trance conference was not scheduled within 14 calendar days of the 

DOD’s being notified of GAO’s request for an entrance conference; 

and (3) The unique identifier for each audit for which an entrance 

conference was not held within 30 calendar days of the DOD’s 

being notified of the request for an entrance conference. 

The GAO shall provide this report to the congressional defense 

committees and the DOD within 30 calendar days of the end of 

each 3-month period. The DOD shall deliver a written response to 

the committees and the GAO not later than 15 calendar days after 

the GAO provides its report to the DOD. 

DOD’s response shall include the following information: (1) Of 

the entrance conferences that the GAO identified as not having 

been scheduled within 14 calendar days or not having been held 

within 30 calendar days, which entrance conferences, by unique 

GAO audit identifier, have since been scheduled and/or held; (2) 

The factors that contributed to delays in scheduling and holding 

entrance conferences; and (3) Actions the DOD has taken or plans 

to take to address factors that contributed to delays and to ensure 

future adherence to the established timeframes for entrance conferences. 

Evaluation of modeling and simulation used for force planning and theater operational requirements 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense uses a 

large number and variety of computer models and simulations to 

support decision-making about force structure, resource allocation, 

war gaming, and priority weapons platforms and technologies to 

develop and deploy in support of likely operational scenarios. These 

models are used to develop information to brief decision makers, including the Congress, about, for example, the current state of the 

balance of forces in the Pacific and European theaters, the outcomes of likely war scenarios, and the need for investments in advanced technologies and new warfighting capabilities. 

The committee is concerned that the quality, accuracy, and dependability of these models, given their important role in decision 

making processes, has not been adequately validated. The committee notes that technical and engineering computer models used 

to develop systems such as body armor and missiles are rigorously 

verified and validated for veractiy of assumptions and technical accuracy using real world data. Other models, such as those used in 

the financial sector, are developed using expertise from a variety 

of disciplines, including economics, sociology, and advanced mathematics. The committee is concerned that the models used by organizations including the Joint Staff, Office of Net Assessment, war 

colleges, and service-level planning entities are simplistic by comparison and not subject to the same level of scrutiny. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an independent team of academic and industry modeling 

and subject matter experts to review the quality of modeling and 

simulation used for force planning, war gaming, resource allocation, and other senior leader decision-making associated with implementation of the National Defense Strategy. The team shall review the technical quality of models currently in use, including 

their ability to simulate as required by application: physics and enVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
254 

gineering, socio-economic impact, readiness, global financial markets, politics, and other relevant inputs and outputs. The team 

shall assess the quality of these models and make recommendations for investments or policy changes needed to enhance and continuously validate current and future modeling and simulation 

tools employed to enable senior-level decision-making. 

The committee directs the Secretary to support the team with expertise as needed from the Joint Staff, Office of Net Assessment, 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and 

other relevant organizations. The Secretary shall ensure that the 

team has sufficient resources and access to all data and records 

necessary to perform its analysis. The committee directs the Secretary to deliver a report on the independent team’s assessments 

and recommendations with any additional comments, and a specific 

concurrence or non-concurrence for each recommendation, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2020. 

Information on Defense Spending 

The committee notes that past years’ appropriations bills have 

required recipients of funds from the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor to disclose in statements, press releases, and other documents that describe projects or programs the total cost of the activities that were 

paid for with federal dollars. This requirement no longer applies to 

the Department of Defense and Department of Agriculture. The 

committee believes this requirement should again apply to the Department of Defense. The committee believes that this would ensure transparency in Department of Defense spending on grants 

and individual projects. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2020, on how the Department would 

implement such a requirement. 

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by law 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is required 

by section 122a of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that reports are made available to the public, to the maximum extent 

practicable, by posting the reports on a publicly accessible website. 

Although the committee understands that exceptions to such posting requirements exist for reports containing classified or proprietary information, or information exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act (Public Law 89–487; 5 U.S.C. 552) the 

committee believes that the Department should make at least reasonable efforts to post all other reports on a publicly accessible 

website. Were the Department to demonstrate compliance with section 122a, the committee would be interested in exploring means 

of reducing the administrative burden to the Department associated with generating and delivering hard copy paper reports to the 

committee. 

255 

Report on the impacts of continuing resolutions 

The committee is concerned by the lack of stability and predictability associated with the congressional budget and appropriations 

process and, specifically, the effect that Continuing Resolutions 

(CRs) have on the operations of the Department of Defense (DOD). 

While the Department often identifies anecdotal detrimental effects 

of CRs, the DOD has never conducted a comprehensive study that 

analyzes the exact damage caused by a CR or series of CRs. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and House of Representatives by March 2, 2020, detailing the impacts of CRs on the DOD. 

The report shall, at a minimum, include assessments of how CRs 

affect: (1) Operations and activities of the Services; (2) Operations 

and activities of the combatant commands; (3) Acquisition and contracting, including the awarding of new contracts, obligations, and 

expenditures; (4) The defense industrial base; (5) Budgets, with an 

estimate of the additional costs to the DOD caused by CRs; and (6) 

Such other operations, programs, projects, and activities as the Secretary considers appropriate in order to provide to the Congress a 

comprehensive understanding of the full impacts of CRs. 

(257) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Modification of temporary assignments of Department of 

Defense employees to a private-sector organization (sec. 

1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1599g(e)(2)(A) of title 10, United State Code, to allow the Department of Defense to temporarily transfer or reassign other personnel within the Department to perform the normal duties and 

functions of employees who are participating in a public-private talent exchange. 

Modification of number of available appointments for certain agencies under personnel management authority to 

attract experts in science and engineering (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

number of section 1599h billets available to the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by 30, bringing the total from 

100 to 130, and decreasing the number of section 1599h billets 

available to the laboratories of the military departments from 40 

to 10. Consistent with its support of the National Defense Strategy, 

the DARPA is accelerating its work in hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and microelectronics and is standing up rapid deployment 

efforts with other parts of the Department of Defense (DOD), all 

of which require bringing on additional specialized expertise. 

The committee believes that it is important for the DOD to be 

able to hire experts in science and engineering. Section 1599h of 

title 10, United States Code, authorizes an expedited hiring processes in order to attract and quickly employ world-class experts 

from the private sector and academia. The committee understands 

that allocating additional billets to the DARPA for this expedited 

hiring process is critical in developing emerging technologies critical to the DOD. 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on 

official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year the discretionary authority of the head of a Federal agency to 

provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those 

provided to members of the Foreign Service to the agency’s civilian 

employees on official duty in a combat zone. 

258 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

Federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1104) 

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 1104 of the John S. McCain National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232), to extend through 2020 the authority of heads of executive agencies to 

waive limitations 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 is 

now in the area of responsibility of the Commander, U.S. Africa 

Command, in support of a military operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Reimbursement of Federal employees for Federal, State, 

and local income taxes incurred during travel, transportation, and relocation (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5724b of title 5, United States Code, to authorize Federal 

agencies to reimburse individuals associated with the Federal civil 

service for all taxes incurred as a result of travel, transportation, 

or relocation expenses reimbursed, or furnished in-kind, by the 

agency concerned. This provision would apply to travel, transportation, or relocation expenses incurred on or after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Analysis of competitive salary and benefits for STEM professionals 

As the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to field increasingly sophisticated equipment and technology, it is crucial that the 

Department build a workforce that is capable of maximizing the 

benefit such new technology provides. The committee recognizes 

that the military and civilian personnel required in the future must 

be well-trained in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM). Despite this well-known need, the committee believes that the Department of Defense is currently poorly suited to 

attracting personnel who have the necessary STEM backgrounds. 

The committee notes that new authorities to enhance competition 

for a small set of technical experts can help balance a compensation mismatch with the private sector but will not be enough to 

match private sector salaries. The committee notes that only the 

institution of improved ‘‘total compensation packages,’’ including 

student loan repayments, flexibility in schedules and work environments, professional development experiences and opportunities, 

and other non-financial rewards, will enable the government to 

compete with the private sector and foreign governments for a limited pool of global STEM talent. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness to coordinate with the Office of PerVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
259 

sonnel Management and Bureau of Labor Statistics to conduct an 

analysis of compensation for the STEM workforce required by the 

Department of Defense. The analysis shall include: (1) An identification of the categories of STEM workers the DOD will require 

to meet the needs of the National Defense Strategy; (2) A comparison of private-sector compensation and the compensation provided 

by the Department of Defense for the identified STEM worker categories, including an assessment of the level of compensation necessary to recruit and retain qualified STEM workers in the DOD; 

and (3) Policy options and recommendations to improve DOD’s ability to provide competitive total compensation packages to the 

STEM workforce. The committee notes that the Department has a 

need to hire STEM experts at the entry-, mid-career, and senior 

technical and managerial levels, and thus the analysis should reflect this diversity of needs and recommend appropriately differentiated policy options. The Under Secretary shall provide a briefing 

on the results of this analysis to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 

2020. 

Appointments of retired members of the Armed Forces to 

positions in the Department of Defense 

Section 1111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) repealed the authority of the Secretaries of the military departments to waive the restriction on the 

appointment of retired members of the Armed Forces to positions 

in the civil service in the Department of Defense within 180 days 

of a servicemember’s retirement based on a state of national emergency. At the time, the committee was concerned that the Department was abusing the national security waiver and undermining 

the long-standing merit principles upon which the Federal civil 

service is based. 

The committee remains supportive of this change and notes that 

the relevant statute provides a straightforward process to the Secretaries of the military departments in the event that they wish to 

hire retired servicemembers within the 180-day post-retirement 

timeframe. In particular, section 3326(c) of title 5, United States 

Code, outlines the process that the Secretaries of the military departments must perform to hire a recently retired servicemember. 

The assurances provided in this process guarantee that the best 

qualified applicant, regardless of prior military service, is hired 

into a vacant Department of Defense civil service position. In short, 

the Secretaries of the military departments must demonstrate that 

minimum competitive procedures were followed in assessing the 

pool of eligible and interested applicants prior to making the selection. 

The committee notes that current law does not prevent retirees 

from applying for a position within the 180-day post-retirement 

timeframe nor does the law prohibit the hiring of such individual. 

The law merely requires that the Secretaries of the military departments give due consideration to other qualified and interested 

candidates prior to making the selection. The committee urges the 

Secretaries of the military departments to make full use of the exVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
260 

isting process for hiring recently retired servicemembers, consistent 

with applicable law, policy, and merit principles. 

Promulgation and delegation of Department of Defense direct hire authority 

Section 1101 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) provided direct 

hire authority for an extensive number of Department of Defense 

(DOD) civil service positions, giving the Secretary of Defense the 

necessary tools to expedite hiring of civilian personnel into positions involving maintenance, depots, cybersecurity, acquisition, and 

science, technology, and engineering. 

The authority to hire qualified personnel using this authority can 

and should be delegated to Secretaries of the military departments, 

directors of Defense Agencies, and directors of DOD field activities. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to delegate this 

authority to the lowest practical level to ensure that the Department achieves the maximum benefit of this authority while ensuring proper oversight. 

Report on investments in national security human capital 

The committee acknowledges the clear recommendations of the 

National Defense Strategy, National Defense Strategy Commission 

Report, and Defense Innovation Board report emphasizing the 

growing need for investment in human capital to support U.S. national security objectives. Further, the committee acknowledges 

and supports the substantial investments made by the Department 

of Defense and others to better develop expertise in critical national security-related career fields. The committee is eager to identify additional opportunities to support initiatives with the goal of 

increasing the number of Americans who have the skills required 

to advance national security. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer, to provide a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later 

than March 1, 2020, that discusses investments in national security human capital. This report shall identify and summarize programs that currently exist to educate and recruit personnel who 

possess critical skills. Critical skills include, but are not limited to, 

those in cybersecurity, science, technology, engineering, math, innovation, computer science, and critical languages. The report shall 

evaluate the effectiveness of each program and identify common 

factors that contribute to programs’ successes or failures to achieve 

their goals. In addition, this report shall: (1) Identify opportunities 

to facilitate, enhance, streamline, or enable these programs; (2) Assess the feasibility of those options; and (3) Provide recommendations to improve the overall outreach and effectiveness of these programs through reorganization and additional investment or resources. 

Specific attention should be paid to efforts to recruit recent graduates with the necessary security clearances and propensity to 

serve in national security-related fields, in both uniformed and civilian capacities. In preparing this report, opportunities to align 

261 

and enhance ongoing research and development partnerships or 

other national security innovation activities with education and recruiting activities through consortia or other methods should also 

be considered. 

(263) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Extension of support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 5 

years section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

Extension of authority for cross servicing agreements for 

loan of personnel protection and personnel survivability 

equipment in coalition operations (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for cross-servicing agreements for loan of personnel protection and survivability equipment in coalition operations in Afghanistan through 2024. 

Two-year extension of program authority for Global Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note), relating to the Global Security Contingency Fund. 

Modification of reporting requirement for use of funds for 

security cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 381(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change the deadline 

for submission of the quarterly report on the use of security cooperation funds from 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter to 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter. 

Institutional legal capacity building initiative for foreign 

defense forces (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out, consistent with section 332 of 

title 10, United States Code, a program of institutional legal capacity building with one or more foreign countries to enhance the capacity to organize and administer the military legal institutions of 

such country or countries. The committee notes that this provision 

is consistent with the direction of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) for the Department of Defense to prioritize institutional capacity building as a 

critical component of its security cooperation efforts with foreign 

partners. 

264 

Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in 

national security interest of the United States (sec. 1206) 

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, to provide certain support 

for the stabilization activities of other Federal agencies. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to 

the military and security forces of Afghanistan through December 

31, 2021. 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

for fiscal year 2020. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to accept any equipment that was procured using 

funds appropriated for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund that 

the security forces of Afghanistan did not accept. The provision 

would authorize a portion of the amount appropriated to the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to be used for recruiting and integrating women into the Afghan National Defense and Security 

Forces. 

The committee understands that the Resolute Support Mission 

leadership, and in particular the Combined Security Transition 

Command—Afghanistan, has conducted significant analysis to ensure that our advisory efforts, both at the institutional and the 

operational levels, are right-sized and effectively aligned to refocus 

the advisory effort on strategic capabilities development. The committee commends the command for this examination and seeks further information regarding this realignment and refocus. 

Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

(sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

in Afghanistan through December 31, 2020, and would authorize 

$5.0 million for that program for use during calendar year 2020. 

Extension and modification of reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States 

military operations (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support 

provided to United States military operations through December 

31, 2020. The provision would also modify this authority to eliminate the authorization of these reimbursements for Pakistan, as reimbursements for Pakistan’s efforts to sustain security along its 

265 

border with Afghanistan are already authorized under section 1213 

of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232). 

Support for reconciliation activities led by the Government 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to provide support for bottom-up, Government of Afghanistan-led reconciliation activities. 

Sense of Senate on special immigrant visa program for Afghan allies (sec. 1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express support for the special immigrant visa program for Afghan allies. The 

committee views this program as vital to the United States mission 

in Afghanistan. Afghans routinely risk their lives to assist United 

States military and diplomatic personnel and further U.S. interests. The committee supports making an additional 4,000 visas 

available to those eligible for special immigrant status under the 

Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note). 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to vetted 

Syrian groups (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) by extending the authority to provide assistance to vetted 

Syrian groups through 2020. The provision would additionally modify the authority to support the temporary detention and repatriation of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) foreign terrorist 

fighters in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict and Geneva 

Conventions. The provision would also expand the section 1209 reporting requirement to include: a description of the training and 

support provided to appropriately vetted Syrian groups, a description of U.S. government stabilization activities being carried out in 

areas that these groups control, and a description of U.S. government support provided to facilitate the repatriation of ISIS foreign 

terrorist fighters. 

Extension of authority and limitation on use of funds to provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria (sec. 1222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria through December 31, 2021. The provision would authorize the use of Overseas Contingency Operations funds to this effect. 

However, under this provision, not more than $375.0 million authorized for such purposes could be obligated or expended until the 

Secretary of Defense submits a report to the congressional defense 

committees that includes: an identification of specific units of the 

Iraqi Security Forces to be trained and equipped; a plan for normalizing security assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces under perVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
266 

manent authorities; an explanation of efforts to transition responsibility for funding the Iraqi Security Forces to the Iraqi government 

in future years; and other matters. The committee supports a transition towards a normalized and sustainable bilateral defense relationship with Iraq. The committee remains strongly committed to 

Iraq’s internal security and stability and urges the Department of 

Defense to continue assistance to the Iraqi government for such 

purposes, including through cooperative defense programs. 

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 

authorization for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq through 

Fiscal Year 2020 and would amend the Office’s authority to support 

security cooperation activities in Iraq. The provision would reduce 

the funds available for this authority from $45.3 million to $30.0 

million. The committee expects the Office of Security Cooperation 

in Iraq to transition to a normalized security cooperation office and 

directs the department to report on its strategy for implementing 

this transition. 

Coordinator of United States Government activities and 

matters in connection with detainees who are members 

of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Attorney General, to designate an existing official within the Executive 

Branch as a senior-level coordinator to coordinate all matters for 

the United States Government relating to the long-term disposition 

of members of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq and associated 

forces. 

Report on lessons learned from efforts to liberate Mosul and 

Raqqah from control of the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria (sec. 1225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on lessons learned from coalition operations to 

liberate Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqah, Syria, from control of the Islamic 

State of Iraq and Syria. 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian 

Federation 

Prohibition on availability of funds relating to sovereignty 

of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 

available for fiscal year 2020 for the Department of Defense to be 

obligated or expended to implement any activity that recognizes 

the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea. 

267 

Prohibition on use of funds for withdrawal of Armed Forces 

from Europe in the event of United States withdrawal 

from the North Atlantic Treaty (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to be obligated, expended, or reprogrammed for the withdrawal of the United States 

Armed Forces from Europe during the 1-year period beginning on 

the date that the President should ever provide notice of withdrawal of the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done 

at Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949, pursuant to Article 13 of the 

treaty. 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the 

United States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2020 the prohibition established in section 1232 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328), as most recently amended by the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232). This section 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. 

Modification and extension of Ukraine Security Assistance 

Initiative (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2022, the authority under section 1250 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended by section 1246 of the John S. 

McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 

(Public Law 115–232), 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 also add coastal defense cruise missiles and anti-ship 

missiles to the categories of appropriate security assistance and intelligence support. The provision would authorize up to $300.0 million in fiscal year 2020 to provide security assistance to Ukraine, 

of which $100.0 million would be available only for lethal assistance. 

The committee believes that the November 25, 2018, Russian attack on and seizure of 3 Ukrainian naval vessels and the capture 

of 24 Ukrainian sailors in that incident represent a provocative escalation of Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and is in 

contravention of international law and numerous Russian commitments. The committee calls on Russia to immediately release the 

Ukrainian sailors and vessels it continues to unjustly detain, end 

its harassment of Ukrainian and international shipping transiting 

the Kerch Strait between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and 

cease its violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, including those against Ukrainian territorial waters. 

268 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to keep the congressional defense committees fully informed of the security situation in the Black Sea, including by promptly informing the committees regarding further aggressive acts by Russia in the region. The 

committee remains concerned about the impact of this Russian escalation on U.S., North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and 

Ukrainian interests in and around the Black Sea and supports ongoing military and diplomatic steps to protect those interests. Such 

steps include the provision of assistance by the United States and 

NATO allies, individually and collectively, to Ukraine to build its 

capabilities to defend its territorial waters. 

Extension of authority for training for Eastern European 

national security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec. 1235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2022, the authority provided in section 1251 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92), as amended by section 1205 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

91), for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide multilateral or regional training, and 

pay the incremental expenses of participating in such training, for 

countries in Eastern Europe that are signatories to the Partnership 

for Peace Framework Documents but not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or that became NATO members 

after January 1, 1999. 

Limitation on transfer of F–35 aircraft to the Republic of 

Turkey (sec. 1236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 

available for the Department of Defense to be used to: (1) Transfer, 

or facilitate the transfer, of F–35 aircraft to the territory of the Republic of Turkey; (2) Transfer equipment, intellectual property, or 

technical data necessary for or related to any maintenance or support of the F–35 aircraft to the territory of the Republic of Turkey; 

or (3) Construct facilities for, or otherwise associated with, the storage of F–35 aircraft in the territory of the Republic of Turkey. The 

provision would permit the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to waive this limitation upon a 

written certification to the congressional defense committees and 

the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and the congressional defense committees and Foreign Affairs Committee of the 

House of Representatives that: (1) The Government of Turkey has 

not accepted delivery of the S–400 air and missile defense system 

from the Russian Federation; and (2) The Government of Turkey 

has provided reliable assurances that it will not accept delivery of 

the S–400 air and missile defense system from the Russian Federation in the future. 

269 

Modifications of briefing, notification, and reporting requirements relating to non-compliance by the Russian 

Federation with its obligations under the INF Treaty 

(sec. 1237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would terminate a 

number of congressional reporting, briefing, and notification requirements germane to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces 

Treaty if the treaty is no longer in force. 

The committee expects that the intelligence community will continue to track closely and report in intelligence channels the development and deployment of Russian weapons systems that were 

previously prohibited under the treaty. 

Extension and modification of security assistance for Baltic 

nations for joint program for interoperability and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1279D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) by modifying and extending the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to conduct or support a single joint program of the 

Baltic nations to improve interoperability and build their capacity 

to deter and resist aggression by the Russian Federation. The provision would modify the authority by: adding command, control, 

communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment to defense articles and services eligible for a 

joint program; increasing the total amount of assistance that may 

be provided under the authority to $125.0 million; requiring that 

the amount of assistance provided may not exceed the aggregate 

amount contributed to the joint program by the Baltic nations; and 

extending the date of termination of the authority to December 31, 

2022. 

According to the annual report of the Secretary General of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Estonia, Latvia, and 

Lithuania each spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product 

on defense, focusing their investments on the capabilities necessary 

to deter and resist Russian aggression. They have also made other 

important contributions to the alliance. Each Baltic nation hosts 

one of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence battlegroups, for which 

they provide critical host nation support. Moreover, all three countries contribute troops to the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission 

in Afghanistan. 

However, despite a demonstrated commitment to defense investment and burden-sharing in the NATO alliance, Estonia, Latvia, 

and Lithuania have significant unmet defense requirements that 

are unlikely to be met solely through their individual national defense budgets. The committee believes that joint procurement could 

enable Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to strengthen security cooperation, improve key military capabilities, and realize cost savings through economies of scale. With support from the United 

States, such as assistance provided by the section 1279D authority, 

as well as participation by other allies and partners, a joint program could accelerate the ability of the Baltic nations to address 

270 

their unmet defense requirements and bolster deterrence against 

Russian aggression. 

Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Readiness 

Initiative (sec. 1239) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Readiness Initiative not later than October 1, 2020. 

Reports on contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1240) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to certain congressional committees 

a report containing a summary of the key findings of the annual 

report of the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as assessments of various elements of burden-sharing and defense cooperation with and among NATO allies. 

Future years plans for European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 

1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Commander of 

United States European Command (EUCOM), to submit to the congressional defense committees a future years plan on activities and 

resources of the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) for fiscal 

year 2020 and not fewer than the 4 succeeding fiscal years. The 

provision would require that the plan include: a description of the 

objectives of the EDI, including a description of the intended force 

structure and posture of the assigned and allocated forces within 

the area of responsibility of EUCOM for the last fiscal year of the 

plan and the manner in which such force structure and posture 

support the implementation of the National Defense Strategy; an 

assessment of capabilities requirements to achieve the objectives of 

the EDI; an assessment of logistics requirements, including personnel, equipment, supplies, storage, and maintenance needs, to 

achieve the objectives of the EDI; an identification of required infrastructure and military construction investments to achieve the 

objectives of the EDI, including potential infrastructure investments by host nations; an assessment of security cooperation investments required to achieve the objectives of the EDI; and a plan 

to fully resource United States force posture and capabilities, including a detailed assessment of the resources necessary to address 

the aforementioned requirements with specific cost estimates for 

each project in the EDI and a detailed timeline to achieve the intended force structure and posture for the last fiscal year of the 

plan. 

The provision would further require that, not later than the date 

on which the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the budget 

request for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2021, the Secretary, in consultation with the Commander of EUCOM, submit to 

the congressional defense committees a future years plan on activities and resources of the EDI for fiscal year 2021 and not fewer 

than the 4 succeeding fiscal years. 

271 

Modification of reporting requirements relating to the Open 

Skies Treaty (sec. 1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would realign an 

annual report required by section 1235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) with the 

calendar year planning process of the Open Skies Treaty. The provision would also reduce the frequency of the submission of a report required by section 1236 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) from quarterly 

to annually. 

Report on nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and 

nuclear modernization of the People’s Republic of China 

(sec. 1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National 

Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing: Russia’s deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons; Russia’s nuclear weapons in 

development that would not be covered by the New START if deployed; Russia’s non-deployed strategic weapons; China’s nuclear 

modernization program; and the implications thereof on the New 

START central limits. 

Sense of Senate on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s establishment. 

Sense of Senate on United States force posture in Europe 

and the Republic of Poland (sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should increase the persistent presence of United States forces in the Republic of Poland, 

including key combat enabler units such as warfighting headquarters elements, in order to enhance deterrence against Russian 

aggression and reduce the risk of executing Department of Defense 

contingency plans. 

Sense of Senate on United States partnership with the Republic of Georgia (sec. 1246) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should promote its enduring strategic partnership with the Republic of Georgia. 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region 

Limitation on use of funds to reduce the total number of 

members of the Armed Forces in the territory of the Republic of Korea (sec. 1251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to reduce the 

total number of members of the Armed Forces in the territory of 

272 

the Republic of Korea (ROK) below 28,500 until 90 days after the 

date on which the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that: such a reduction is in the national 

security interests of the United States and will not significantly undermine the security of United States allies in the region; such a 

reduction is commensurate with a reduction in the threat posed to 

the security of the United States and its allies in the region by the 

conventional military forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of 

Korea (DPRK); and the Secretary has appropriately consulted with 

allies of the United States, including the ROK and Japan, regarding such a reduction. 

The committee recognizes that U.S. military forces deployed on 

the Korean Peninsula remain vital to deterring and, if necessary, 

defeating aggression by the DPRK, which continues to threaten the 

national security interests of the United States and the peace and 

stability of the Indo-Pacific region through both its conventional 

forces and weapons of mass destruction. While the committee supports diplomatic efforts to achieve the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the DPRK, the committee believes 

that the significant removal of United States military forces from 

the Korean Peninsula is non-negotiable in such efforts. 

The committee believes that the U.S.-ROK alliance remains fundamental to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region and to 

U.S. national security interests. As diplomatic efforts concerning 

denuclearization continue, the committee believes that the United 

States and the ROK should prioritize preserving and strengthening 

the alliance and reject cynical efforts by other nations to undermine it. 

The committee commends the ROK for its significant ‘‘burdensharing’’ contributions. At approximately 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, ROK defense spending is among the highest of any 

U.S. ally. This level of investment is reflected in the advanced capabilities and high readiness of the ROK military. Moreover, the 

ROK has made substantial financial contributions to strengthening 

common security, including through direct cost-sharing and other 

alliance-related expenditures, such as the construction of Camp 

Humphreys for U.S. forces. Therefore, the committee believes that 

it is critical that negotiations concerning a new Special Measures 

Agreement between the United States and the ROK covering 2020 

and beyond should be conducted in a spirit of common interest and 

mutual respect and with due consideration of the ROK’s significant 

contributions. 

The committee also encourages the ROK and Japan to renew 

their commitment to bilateral and multilateral security cooperation, which is beneficial for both nations and the security of the 

Indo-Pacific region. 

Expansion of Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative (sec. 

1252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1263(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to include as recipient countries for 

assistance and training under the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security 

Initiative the following: the Federated States of Micronesia, the 

273 

Kingdom of Tonga, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Fiji, the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands. 

The committee notes the National Defense Strategy’s (NDS) emphasis on strengthening alliances and attracting new partners. In 

particular, the NDS calls for expanding Indo-Pacific alliances and 

partnerships, including through regional security cooperation 

mechanisms, in order to develop a networked security architecture 

capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains. The committee also notes the 

testimony of the Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, before 

the committee on February 12, 2019, concerning the importance of 

deepening engagement with countries in Oceania, in which he cited 

‘‘opportunities to partner with our strong allies, Australia and 

France, and strong friend, New Zealand, to improve informationsharing and maritime cooperation as the Pacific Island Countries 

address the challenges associated with Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, natural disasters, narcotics trafficking, 

and economic coercion from Beijing.’’ To seize these opportunities, 

in a March 22, 2019, letter to the congressional defense committees, the Commander recommended a maritime security program 

for countries in Oceania. 

The committee recognizes that strengthening alliances and partnerships in Oceania is critical for supporting the implementation of 

the National Defense Strategy in the Indo-Pacific. The committee 

believes that the inclusion of the aforementioned eight countries in 

Oceania in the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative would support this effort. 

Modification of annual report on military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 

(sec. 1253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph 26 of section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) 

by modifying reporting requirements concerning the relationship 

between Chinese overseas investment, including the Belt and Road 

Initiative and the Digital Silk Road, and Chinese security and military objectives. 

Report on resourcing United States defense requirements 

for the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander, United States Indo-Pacific Command, to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report containing the independent assessment of the Commander with respect to the activities and resources required for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to 

achieve the following objectives: the implementation of the National Defense Strategy with respect to the Indo-Pacific region; the 

maintenance or restoration of the comparative military advantage 

of the United States with respect to the People’s Republic of China; 

and the reduction of the risk of executing contingency plans of the 

Department of Defense. The report would include a plan to fully resource U.S. force posture and capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region, 

274 

including specific cost estimates for priority investments or 

projects. The provision would require, following the submission of 

the report, two joint briefings on assessments of the report with a 

focus on the feasibility and advisability of the resource plan provided by the Commander. The first briefing would be provided by 

the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The second would be provided by the Secretary of the Air Force, 

the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Navy. 

The committee believes that effective implementation of the National Defense Strategy and addressing the challenge of strategic 

competition with China require urgent change at significant scale. 

However, while the Department of Defense has made progress toward this goal, the pace and scale of change have been insufficient. 

The Department of Defense needs a unified, comprehensive, and 

long-term vision of its requirements in the Indo-Pacific region as 

well as the necessary resources and a feasible timeline to achieve 

them. The committee is committed to partnering with the Department of Defense to develop and implement such a vision. To that 

end, the required report and the subsequent briefings will inform 

the committee’s review of the Department of Defense’s development 

and submission of a fiscal year 2022 budget request and associated 

future years defense program with a focus on the National Defense 

Strategy and strategic competition with China. 

Report on distributed lay-down of United States forces in 

the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Government of 

Japan and other foreign governments as necessary, to conduct a review of the planned distribution of members of the United States 

Armed Forces in the Indo-Pacific region as contemplated by the 

United States and Japan in past agreements. The provision would 

also establish certain certification, notification, and reporting requirements related to the results of the review. 

The committee acknowledges the pressing need to reduce the 

presence of United States Marine Corps on Okinawa, Japan, and 

to accelerate adjustments to United States force posture in the 

Indo-Pacific region. The committee believes that it is critical that 

the United States pursue these objectives in close consultation with 

the Government of Japan. 

Sense of Senate on the United States-Japan alliance and defense cooperation (sec. 1256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate concerning the United States-Japan alliance 

and opportunities for enhancing defense cooperation. 

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the United States-Taiwan defense relationship (sec. 1257) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate concerning the enhancement of the United 

States-Taiwan defense relationship. The committee believes that 

the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96– 

275 

8) provides a fitting opportunity to evaluate the future of the 

United States-Taiwan defense relationship, particularly given the 

Department of Defense’s focus on implementation of the National 

Defense Strategy and on strategic competition with China. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, not later than December 31, 2019, to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives in person and provide: an assessment of the role of relations 

with Taiwan in implementation of the National Defense Strategy; 

a description of Department of Defense policies related to defense 

cooperation, military exchanges, combined defense planning, and 

combined exercises and training with Taiwan; a description of how 

other executive branch policies related to relations with Taiwan affect the Department of Defense; and the objectives of the Department of Defense concerning the United States-Taiwan defense relationship. 

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship 

(sec. 1258) 

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 security commitments to the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and trilateral 

cooperation among the United States, Japan, and the 

Republic of Korea (sec. 1259) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate with respect to security commitments to the 

Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of 

Korea. 

Sense of Senate on enhanced cooperation with Pacific Island countries to establish open-source intelligence fusion centers in the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1260) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that U.S. Indo-Pacific Command should pursue 

the establishment of one or more open-source intelligence fusion 

centers in the Indo-Pacific region to enhance cooperation with Pacific Island countries. 

Sense of Senate on enhancing defense and security cooperation with the Republic of Singapore (sec. 1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that robust defense and security cooperation 

between the United States and the Republic of Singapore is crucial 

to promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. 

276 

Subtitle F—Reports 

Report on cost imposition strategy (sec. 1271) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing the cost imposition strategies of the Department of Defense with respect to the People’s Republic of China 

and the Russian Federation. 

Subtitle G—Others Matters 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 5 

years the authority established in section 1244 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), 

as most recently amended by section 1280 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Modifications of authorities relating to acquisition and 

cross-servicing agreements (sec. 1282) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 2342 of title 10, United States Code to improve management, 

transparency, and oversight of Department of Defense acquisition 

and cross-servicing agreements. 

Modification of authority for United States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1283) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to modify the authority for United 

States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation activities. The provision 

would remove countering unmanned aerial systems from the section 1279 authority. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would establish a separate authority for 

United States-Israel cooperation regarding countering unmanned 

aerial systems. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of 

Defense to use amounts available under the section 1279 authority, 

which are in excess of the amount contributed by the Government 

of Israel, for costs associated with unique national requirements 

identified by the United States with respect to anti-tunnel capabilities. 

United States-Israel cooperation to counter unmanned aerial systems (sec. 1284) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out joint research, development, test, 

and evaluation to establish capabilities for countering unmanned 

aerial systems (C–UAS) that threaten the United States or Israel. 

The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) included a provision that 

modified the authority for United States-Israel anti-tunneling cooperation activities, provided by section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), 

277 

to include C–UAS activities. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee 

recommends a provision that would strike that modification. This 

provision would establish a separate authority to conduct joint C– 

UAS efforts with Israel to ensure dedicated support for both antitunneling and C–UAS cooperation as well as to ensure proper oversight and transparency of C–UAS cooperation through reporting 

and certification requirements. 

Modification of initiative to support protection of national 

security academic researchers from undue influence 

and other security threats (sec. 1285) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) to require the Secretary of Defense to develop a list of academic institutions of the 

People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation that are: (1) 

Associated with a defense program of the People’s Republic of 

China or the Russian Federation, including any university heavily 

engaged in military research; (2) Are known to recruit individuals 

for the purpose of advancing the talent and capabilities of such a 

defense program or to provide misleading transcripts or otherwise 

attempt to conceal the connections of an individual or institution 

to such a defense program; or (3) Pose a serious risk of intangible 

transfers of defense or engineering technology and research. The 

provision would require that the list be developed in consultation 

with the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of 

Commerce, the Director of National Intelligence, and United States 

academic institutions that conduct significant Department of Defense research or engineering activities. 

Independent assessment of human rights situation in Honduras (sec. 1286) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with an independent think tank or a federally funded research and development 

center to conduct an analysis and assessment of the compliance of 

the military and security forces of Honduras with international 

human rights laws and standards. 

United States Central Command posture review (sec. 1287) 

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate a 

comprehensive United States Central Command posture review, 

which would assess the extent to which the United States possesses the force posture and capabilities for countering threats 

emanating from and affecting the United States Central Command’s area of responsibility. While the committee views a continuous force presence in U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility as necessary for countering a wide range of threats, the committee supports the National Defense Strategy’s (NDS) emphasis 

on the importance of alliances and partnerships. As stated in the 

NDS, ‘‘By working together with allies and partners we amass the 

greatest possible strength for the long-term advancement of our interests, maintaining favorable balances of power that deter aggression and support the stability that generates economic growth. 

278 

When we pool resources and share responsibility for our common 

defense, our security burden becomes lighter.’’ The committee urges 

the Secretary of Defense to work toward increased burden-sharing 

with our regional and European partners in countering threats 

emanating from and affecting U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility and in pursuing shared security objectives. 

Reports on expenses incurred for in-flight refueling of 

Saudi coalition aircraft conducting missions relating to 

civil war in Yemen (sec. 1288) 

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate a 

report detailing the expenses incurred by the United States in providing in-flight refueling services for Saudi or Saudi-led coalition 

non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of the civil 

war in Yemen from March 1, 2015, to November 11, 2018, and the 

extent to which such expenses have been reimbursed by members 

of the Saudi-led coalition. 

Sense of Senate on security concerns with respect to leasing 

arrangements for the Port of Haifa in Israel (sec. 1289) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States has an interest in the 

future forward presence of United States naval vessels at the Port 

of Haifa in Israel but has serious security concerns with respect to 

current the leasing arrangements of the Port of Haifa. Therefore, 

the provision would express the view that the United States should 

urge the Government of Israel to consider the security implications 

of foreign investment in Israel. 

Items of Special Interest 

Contributions of allies and partners to costs of U.S. forces 

stationed overseas 

The committee recognizes that a credible forward force posture 

and assured access to critical military locations around the world 

are necessary elements of any effective strategy for defending the 

security and interests of the United States. Moreover, neither are 

possible without the willingness of allies and partners to host U.S. 

forces. Indeed, the National Defense Strategy underscores that allies and partners ‘‘provide access to critical regions, supporting a 

widespread basing and logistics system that underpins the [Department of Defense’s] global reach.’’ Posture and access are central 

issues of U.S. defense policy, essential for meaningful power projection, and serve as important reminders that the value of U.S. alliances and partnerships cannot be measured in dollars and cents 

alone. 

The committee remains concerned about media reports and other 

statements regarding consideration of maximalist approaches to 

cost-sharing and host-nation support. While the committee believes 

that allies and partners should contribute an equitable share to 

mutually beneficial collective security, such approaches are likely 

to result in significant long-term damage to U.S. force posture, 

power projection capabilities, alliances and partnerships, and national security. 

279 

The committee notes the testimony of the Acting Secretary of Defense to the committee on March 14, 2019: ‘‘We won’t do cost-plus50 percent. . . . We’re not going to run a business, and we’re not 

going to run a charity.’’ While the Acting Secretary told the committee that allies need to ‘‘pay their fair share,’’ he emphasized 

that ‘‘it is not about cost-plus-50 percent.’’ 

Not later than October 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on allied and partner contributions toward the cost of stationing U.S. forces overseas, including 

the U.S. approach to upcoming cost-sharing negotiations through 

the end of fiscal year 2020. 

Cooperative research and development efforts of the United 

States and Israel 

The committee recognizes the important contributions of cooperative research and development efforts to the national security of 

the United States and Israel, most notably with respect to missile 

defense and anti-tunneling capabilities. Given the National Defense 

Strategy’s emphasis on working together with allies and partners 

and on accelerating modernization to maintain or restore the competitive military advantage of the United States, the committee 

seeks to better understand the Department of Defense’s approach 

to future cooperative research and development efforts with Israel, 

including in emerging or advanced technology areas such as directed energy, hypersonic weapons, and space systems. 

The committee directs the Department to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2020, on 

the feasibility and desirability of enhanced cooperative research 

and development efforts with Israel. The analysis should include 

but not necessarily be limited to the following: (1) An identification 

of shared capability gaps of the United States and Israel; (2) An 

assessment of the relative priority assigned to addressing such capability gaps by the United States and Israel; (3) An assessment 

of the extent to which cooperative projects would address such capability gaps in a timely and efficient manner, including in comparison with unilateral efforts; and (4) An identification of new authorities, regulatory or policy changes, or additional resources that 

would be required to undertake cooperative projects deemed to be 

feasible and desirable. 

Forward-deployed naval forces in Europe 

The committee supports the continued forward-basing of four 

United States Navy destroyers in Rota, Spain. These ships are 

among the most dynamically-employed naval forces-performing ballistic missile defense missions, carrying out strikes in Syria, boosting U.S. presence across the European theater in support of allies 

and partners, and monitoring increasing Russian naval activities. 

At the same time, these ships have maintained high readiness, in 

part due to rigorous maintenance practices. 

In a January 14, 2019, interview, the Commander, U.S. Sixth 

Fleet, stated that the forward presence provided by the four destroyers at Rota ‘‘is the bedrock of our ability to reassure allies and 

respond to any threats that come up.’’ She added, ‘‘There is no subVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
280 

stitute for having that kind of forward presence in Europe.’’ The 

Commander also observed that the ‘‘solid’’ operational model for 

these ships has enabled them to maintain ‘‘exceptional’’ readiness 

as well as their training and certifications. Furthermore, the four 

ships have been able to ‘‘conduct all the intermediate maintenance 

and the extended maintenance availabilities [needed] to stay ready 

and stay focused while on patrol.’’ 

The committee is concerned about increasing Russian naval activity in the European theater, which is now at its highest level 

since the Cold War. The committee is also aware of the significant 

advances in Russian naval capability, especially as it relates to its 

attack submarines. 

Due in part to these developments, the Commander, U.S. European Command, testified to the committee on March 5, 2019, that 

he has recommended adding two destroyers at Rota, Spain. The 

Commander stated that, in order ‘‘to remain dominant in the maritime domain and particularly under sea,’’ the United States 

‘‘need[s] greater capability, particularly given the modernization 

and the growth of the Russian fleets in Europe.’’ Furthermore, the 

President’s nominee to be the next commander of U.S. European 

Command testified to the committee on April 2, 2019, that he 

agreed with the current commander’s recommendation. 

Therefore, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee directs 

the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commander, U.S. European 

Command, to provide a joint briefing to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and House on the merit and feasibility of 

basing two additional destroyers at Rota, Spain, including an assessment of whether such an enhancement to U.S. force posture in 

Europe would enhance the ability of the United States to deter aggression, flexibly and proactively shape the strategic environment, 

improve readiness to respond to contingencies, and ensure longterm warfighting readiness. 

Matters related to Bosnia and Herzegovina 

The committee shares the longstanding commitment of the 

United States to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty, territorial 

integrity, stability, and prosperity. The committee continues to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations to join the European 

Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well 

as efforts to achieve reforms necessary to realize those goals, including strengthening the rule of law, safeguarding an independent 

judiciary, tackling corruption, and improving financial accountability and transparency. Moreover, the committee welcomes the 

decision by NATO allies to accept the submission of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina’s first annual national program as part of the Membership Action Plan process. However, the committee remains concerned about the potential for renewed violent conflict, especially in 

light of Russia’s destabilizing activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

as well as those of nationalist forces. 

Therefore, not later than December 31, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House a briefing on the contingency plans and readiness of U.S. and NATO forces to support and 

supplement EUFOR in the event of a violent conflict. 

281 

Matters related 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’s and Serbia’s shared European 

future and the stability of the Western Balkans. Therefore, the 

committee urges both Kosovo and Serbia to embrace the historic 

opportunity for an enduring peace and reconciliation and refrain 

from any actions that would make a comprehensive normalization 

agreement more difficult to achieve. 

The committee continues to support U.S. assistance to the 

Kosovo Security Force as the latter makes the gradual transition 

to a transparent and multi-ethnic army for the Republic of Kosovo 

that is interoperable with North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) members. The committee believes that it is critical that 

this transformation take place in close coordination with NATO allies and partners through an inclusive and transparent process, 

which 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. 

The committee also fully supports the continued mission of 

NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR), which plays an indispensable role in 

maintaining security and stability in Southeastern Europe. Together with our allies and partners, the United States should maintain its commitment to KFOR and take all appropriate steps to ensure that it has the necessary personnel, capabilities, and resources 

to perform its critical mission. 

Protect Interests of Syrian Democratic Forces During U.S. 

Withdrawal 

The committee believes that the security and stability of eastern 

Syria and continued engagement with the Syrian Democratic 

Forces (SDF) is in the national security interest of the United 

States and important to regional stability. The committee notes 

that the SDF, including both Kurdish and Arab components, have 

made significant sacrifices and contributions to the liberation of 

areas controlled by ISIS and the defeat of the so-called physical caliphate. The committee also notes that ISIS remains a considerable 

security threat and that continued counterterrorism operations in 

partnership with the SDF will be necessary to ensure the enduring 

defeat of the group. 

The committee is concerned that a premature withdrawal of U.S. 

forces from Syria could negatively impact the security and stability 

of eastern Syria and put at risk the gains achieved by the Global 

Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Additionally, such a withdrawal would 

cede critical competitive geopolitical space to Russia and Iran that 

could significantly alter the regional balance of power in ways contrary to U.S. national security interests. Therefore, the committee 

urges the President to consider fully the direct and indirect effects 

of any decision related to a reduction of U.S. forces in Syria on security and stability in eastern Syria, including but not limited to: 

(1) The safety of Kurdish and Arab elements of the SDF and 

civilians in areas under their control; 

282 

(2) Local governance efforts; 

(3) Protection of internally displaced people and other vulnerable populations; 

(4) Facilitation of international stabilization and reconstruction activities; and 

(5) Detention and repatriation of ISIS foreign terrorist fighters. 

Support to the Kurdish Peshmerga 

The committee notes that the United States-led coalition known 

as the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve 

(CJTF–OIR) in partnership with the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), including the Kurdish Peshmerga, successfully liberated significant 

Iraqi territory from the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria (ISIS). While the committee applauds this significant 

achievement, it also expresses concern that ISIS continues to pose 

a significant threat to Iraq, the region, and potentially the U.S. 

homeland. 

According to the most recent Lead Inspector General report for 

OIR, CJTF–OIR has expressed concern that ISIS has transitioned 

to ‘‘operating as an insurgent organization,’’ including ‘‘operating 

primarily in rural parts of northern and western Iraq where security forces have little reach.’’ In its report, the Lead Inspector General also highlighted concerns that ‘‘ISIS has been able to exploit 

the physical security gaps between the ISF and the Peshmerga, 

and increased coordination between the two sides is necessary to 

counter-ISIS activities.’’ 

The committee believes a lasting defeat of ISIS is critical to 

maintaining a stable and tolerant Iraq in which all faiths, sects, 

and ethnicities are afforded equal protection and full integration 

into the Government and society of Iraq and supports the provision 

of U.S. security and other assistance for such purposes. As part of 

those efforts, the committee supports continued assistance to Kurdish Peshmerga forces with the objective of enabling them to more 

effectively partner with the ISF, the United States, and other international partners. The committee strongly supports continuation of 

the partnership between the U.S. military and the Kurdish 

Peshmerga in furtherance of our shared interests, including 

through the signing of a new memorandum of understanding between the Department of Defense and the Ministry of Peshmerga. 

The committee also strongly supports actions by the Government 

of Iraq to assume responsibility for paying for the salaries and 

sustainment of Peshmerga forces. In the coming years, the committee encourages the Department to normalize its support to the 

Peshmerga by focusing assistance on reform and 

professionalization at the ministerial and unit level. 

(283) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Funding allocations for Department of Defense Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Program (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $338.7 million for 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 fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022. 

Items of Special Interest 

10-year risk planning for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Program 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than April 

30, 2021, on the risks and vulnerabilities over the next 10 years 

associated with containing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies to guide future programmatic 

efforts of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The report 

shall be unclassified with a classified annex, if required. 

(285) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 

Defense, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug 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 

Modification of prohibition on acquisition of sensitive materials from non-allied foreign nations (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2533c of title 10, United States Code, to include tantalum in 

the definition of covered materials. 

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 

286 

Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2020 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(a) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 

U.S.C. 412(a)) to: (1) Expand eligibility to retired veterans under 

age 60 and retired members of the National Guard and Reserves 

(NGR); and (2) Provide parity of fees for veterans eligible for active 

military service and those newly eligible through NGR service by 

requiring the income used for fee determination for an NGR-eligible resident to be not less than an Active-Duty resident’s military 

retirement pay at the same grade and length of service. The provision would also amend section 1514(c) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 414(c)) to provide parity for 

monthly withholding from pay of NGR members and Active-Duty 

members by applying the withholding across the total force, as well 

as requiring newly eligible NGR residents to pay a fee upon admission for years prior to the date of the enactment of this Act when 

the withholding was not taken from pay. 

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 $127.0 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, established 

by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), for the operation of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Budget Items 

Air Force cash corpus for energy optimization 

The budget request included $92.4 million in Working Capital 

Fund, Air Force. 

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 Air Force Working Capital Fund 493003F to create a cash 

corpus for the purposes of energy optimization initiatives. 

Contraceptive coverage parity under the TRICARE program 

The budget request included $31.8 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance account for the Defense Health Program (DHP). The 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the DHP includes the following change from the budget request. The provision underlying 

287 

this change in funding level is discussed in greater detail in title 

VII of this committee report. 

[Change in millions of dollars] 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE Program ....... +11.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +11.0 

Items of Special Interest 

Armed Forces Retirement Home 

The committee recognizes the critical role of the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (AFRH) in providing residences and related services for certain retired and former members of the Armed Forces. 

The committee notes that the AFRH plans to lease 80 acres of underutilized land for development on its Washington, D.C., campus. 

As the AFRH’s management, the General Services Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers review development proposals, the committee encourages them to: (1) Conduct 

the review and selection process in a fair and open manner; (2) 

Give preference to shovel-ready proposals that conform to the 

‘‘AFRH–W Master Plan’’; (3) Give preference to proposals that include innovative measures that would enhance services for AFRH 

residents; (4) Give preference to proposals that maximize value to 

the AFRH through balancing financial priorities such as near-term 

cash flow and long-term appreciated value; and (5) Give preference 

to proposals that include certified audits of revenues and expenses 

by the developers. 

(289) 

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 available authorized appropriations 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 title 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 appropriation 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 appropriation 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 appropriation for the Defense Working Capital Funds at 

the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for the Drug Interdiction and CounterVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
290 

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 appropriation 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 appropriation 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 $2.5 billion of overseas contingency operations funding authorized for fiscal year 2020 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. 

Budget Items 

Transfer from OCO to Base Procurement 

The budget request included $23.1 billion for Procurement in 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The committee 

notes that the President’s budget request included $97.9 billion in 

the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities 

that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee 

believes that OCO for Base funding should be transferred into the 

base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.5 billion to Procurement OCO. 

Transfer OCO to Base RDT&E 

The budget request included $1.6 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The committee notes that the President’s 

budget request included $97.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO) account for activities that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee believes that OCO for Base 

funding should be transferred into the base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $748.0 million to RDT&E OCO. 

291 

Marine Corps facility sustainment increase for disaster recovery 

The budget request included $5.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OMMCOCO), of which $443.3 million was requested for SAG 

BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization. 

The committee notes the ongoing recovery efforts in the mid-Atlantic region at installations such as Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps 

Air Station Cherry Point, and Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany. 

The committee believes that additional funds are needed to assist 

in those efforts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMMCOCO of $340.0 million for SAG BSM1 to specifically augment disaster recovery. 

Air Force facility sustainment disaster recovery increase 

The budget request included $33.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OMAFOCO), of which $4.3 billion was requested for SAG 011R Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization. 

The committee notes the ongoing recovery efforts at Tyndall Air 

Force Base, Eglin Air Force Base, Warner Robins Air Logistics 

Center, and Offutt Air Force Base due to recent hurricanes and 

flooding. The committee believes that additional funds are needed 

to assist in those efforts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMAFOCO of $340.0 million for SAG 011R to specifically augment 

disaster recovery. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO), for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 

of which $812.0 million is for the security cooperation account. 

The committee notes that the reforms to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) security cooperation enterprise required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328) sought to rationalize and streamline the authorities and 

associated funding available for security cooperation and enhance 

the effectiveness of DOD planning, execution, and oversight. Additionally, that law emphasized the critical importance of non-materiel solutions to the effectiveness of DOD security cooperation efforts, namely through an increased emphasis on building the institutional capacity of foreign partners to more competently manage 

and sustain their own forces and the equipment and related assistance provided by the United States. The reforms also highlighted 

the need to mature the DOD security cooperation workforce and 

the development and implementation of a rigorous assessment, 

monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E) program to ensure that DOD 

programs are appropriately scoped and meeting clearly defined objectives. 

However, while funding for DSCA’s security cooperation account—which is primarily used to provide equipment and training 

to foreign partners to build capacity at the tactical and operational 

292 

levels—has grown from approximately $895 million in fiscal year 

2018 for base and OCO to the $1.2 billion requested for fiscal year 

2020 for base and OCO, the DOD continues to insufficiently 

prioritize and resource congressionally-mandated efforts relating to 

DOD security cooperation workforce development, AM&E, and institutional capacity building. The committee believes that this imbalance inhibits appropriate security cooperation program design, 

execution, and oversight, which could lead to suboptimal outcomes 

and wasted taxpayer dollars. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, for the security cooperation account, for a total 

of $712.0 million. 

Iraq Security Cooperation 

The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

The committee understands that a substantial portion of the 

funds requested for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements is for capacity building of the Iraqi Security Forces as opposed to operational support and immediate reconstitution of units degraded in 

the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The committee believes that, as the United States seeks to normalize its security assistance relationship with the Government of Iraq, traditional capacity building activities should be funded via standing 

authorities for such purposes, such as section 333 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 4GTD for capacity building of the 

Iraqi Security Forces. The committee notes that, elsewhere in this 

Act, there is a commensurate decrease in the Counter-ISIS Train 

and Equip Fund. 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 

The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency Operations, 

for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which 

$250.0 million was for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to 

SAG4GTD Defense Security Cooperation Agency for the Ukraine 

Security Assistance Initiative. 

Transfer OCO to Base O&M 

The budget request included $133.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance (O&M) in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

funding. The committee notes that the President’s budget request 

included $97.9 billion in the OCO account for activities that are 

traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee believes 

that OCO for Base funding should be transferred into the base accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $81.3 billion to O&M OCO. 

293 

Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip 

Fund 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO), for the Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and 

Equip Fund, of which $745.0 million is for SAG 110 Iraq Train and 

Equip Requirements. 

The committee understands that a substantial portion of the 

funds requested for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements is for capacity building of the Iraqi Security Forces as opposed to operational support and immediate reconstitution of units degraded in 

the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The committee believes that, as the United States seeks to normalize its security assistance relationship with the Government of Iraq, traditional capacity building activities should be funded via standing 

authorities for such purposes, such as section 333 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 110 Iraq Train and Equip Requirements. The committee notes that, elsewhere in this Act, there is a 

commensurate increase for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements. 

(295) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Space Activities 

Part I—United States Space Force 

United States Space Force (secs. 1601–1608) 

The committee recommends a series of provisions (sec. 1601– 

1608) that would establish the U.S. Space Force (USSF) and make 

changes to the organization of, authorities of, and acquisition associated with space forces assigned to the Department of Defense 

(DOD). The committee is concerned that the United States’ assets 

and interests in space are increasingly at risk and that space has 

become a contested domain. In an era of great power competition, 

the DOD must appropriately organize itself to maintain, grow, and 

optimize U.S. competitive advantage in the space warfighting domain. The committee believes that these provisions would organize 

the Department to maximize warfighting capacity while minimizing the bureaucratic and taxpayer burden of an initial reorganization and providing a structured framework and roadmap to develop the USSF over the long-term. 

The committee intends for these provisions to: (1) Retain space 

capabilities and efficiencies developed by current organizational 

constructs; (2) Consolidate and integrate space acquisition resources and intellectual capital to realize economies of scale, 

streamline procurement timelines, and accelerate the deployment 

of U.S. capabilities in the space warfighting domain; (3) Transition 

DOD space warfighting assets from a strictly supporting role to an 

active warfighting capability and develop unity of command in the 

space domain; and (4) Foster and further develop space warfighting 

culture. 

These provisions would expand and change the role of the Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Space by renaming it the Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force 

for Space Acquisition and Integration (SAF/SP) and establishing 

the position as the senior space acquisition executive (SSAE) for all 

space acquisition across the Air Force, separate from the existing 

Air Force senior acquisition executive. The SAF/SP, as the SSAE, 

would report to the Secretary of the Air Force for all Air Force 

space acquisition programs and would have oversight and control 

over all Air Force space acquisition activities, including all major 

defense acquisition programs relating to warfighting in space. All 

space acquisition projects currently managed by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition would be transitioned to the 

SAF/SP. These provisions would also elevate the SAF/SP to a civilian 4-star equivalent position. The committee believes that the exVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
296 

pansion of the responsibilities and elevation of the position of the 

SAF/SP would help to minimize the statutory and bureaucratic 

seams that exist between space acquisition authorities and officials 

spread across the DOD. 

These provisions would transition control of the manpower, agencies, and budgets within the Space and Missile Systems Center, the 

Space Rapid Capabilities Office, and the Space Development Agency to the SAF/SP, as the SSAE, upon the enactment of this Act. 

The committee believes that assigning to the SAF/SP this acquisition authority and organizational responsibility would reduce bureaucracy, improve oversight, and minimize interagency gaps. 

These provisions would require the Secretary of the Air Force to 

provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense committees 

on this transition’s progress and the need, if any, for further congressional action. The first briefing would be provided not later 

than March 31, 2020, and this requirement would expire on March 

31, 2022. 

These provisions would also establish a Space Force Acquisition 

Council (SAC) within the Department of the Air Force, which 

would oversee, direct, and manage Air Force acquisitions for space 

in order to ensure integration across the national security space enterprise. These provisions would establish the SAF/SP as the chair 

of Council, which would act as an approval and clearinghouse authority to move space operations projects to orbit faster and provide 

warfighter access and operational utility. The Under Secretary of 

the Air Force, the Commander, U.S. Space Command 

(SPACECOM), the Commander, United States Space Force (USSF), 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, and the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) would also be 

members of the Council. The committee believes that the inclusion 

of the Director of the NRO on the SAC would help to minimize the 

space acquisition seam that exists between the NRO and the Air 

Force. The SAC would meet not less frequently than monthly. 

These provisions would require the SAC to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 30 days after the end of 

each calendar year quarter through the first calendar year quarter 

of 2025, a report on the activities of the Council during the previous calendar year quarter. 

As the Air Force implements these changes, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to examine and consider 

the model that the NRO uses for acquisition. The committee acknowledges that, by utilizing its small-sized staff and a streamlined acquisition process, the NRO is able to move with agility and 

acquire assets rapidly. The committee intends for these provisions 

to better position the Air Force to gain the same efficiencies in 

space acquisition as the NRO. 

These provisions would also redesignate the Commander, Air 

Force Space Command, as the Commander, USSF. This 4-star commander would have a 4-year term of command and responsibility 

to organize, train, and equip space forces, serving as the primary 

force provider for SPACECOM. The Commander, USSF, would exercise authority for doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy responsibilities, utilizing the existing structure of the Air Force for adminisVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
297 

trative support as the new USSF structure is established and further defined. The Commander, USSF, would report through the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force to the Secretary of the Air Force during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

this Act. After 1 year, the Commander, USSF, would report directly 

to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Commander, USSF, would 

participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the discretion of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as topics dictate and issues 

require, for the 1-year period beginning on the data of enactment 

of this Act. After 1 year, the Commander, USSF, would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These provisions would also designate the Vice Commander, Air Force Space Command, as the 

Vice Commander, USSF. The Vice Commander would be elevated 

to a Senate-confirmed 4-star position and would support the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff at the request of the Commander, USSF. Finally, 

these provisions would require that, as the Secretary of the Air 

Force establishes the USSF, the Secretary use existing military 

and civilian personnel within the Air Force; these provisions do not 

authorize additional military billets or additional employment of civilian personnel. 

These provisions would provide the Secretary of Defense with the 

authority to establish a dual-hatted arrangement wherein the Commander, USSF, would also serve as the Commander, SPACECOM, 

during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 

of this Act, an authority that the committee expects the Secretary 

to utilize. Should the Secretary elect to establish this dual-hat arrangement, the committee recommends that, after this 1-year authority expires, the Secretary appoint a new individual to serve as 

Commander, SPACECOM, and the previously dual-hatted Commander retain his position as Commander, USSF. These provisions 

would require the Secretary to evaluate not later than 1 year after 

the enactment of this Act, as both the USSF and SPACECOM mature, the advisability of permitting the Commander, USSF, to serve 

concurrently as the Commander, SPACECOM, and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the evaluation results. These provisions would also require the Comptroller General 

of the United States to review the Secretary of Defense’s reports 

and to provide briefings to the congressional defense committees on 

those reviews not later than 30 days after the Secretary submits 

such report. 

These provisions would require the Secretary of the Air Force to 

move existing space professionals within the Air Force to the 

USSF, thereby provisioning to the Commander, USSF, a space 

cadre in order to organize current Air Force space personnel under 

the entity responsible for their manning, training, and equipping 

and to further develop a service-like space warfighting ethos and 

culture. While this would include Air Force servicemembers on assignment in other components of the Department and the intelligence community, Space Force members would continue to rotate 

through assignment to the NRO. These provisions would require 

the Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly briefings to the 

congressional defense committees on this transition’s progress and 

the need, if any, for further congressional action. The first briefing 

298 

would be provided not later than March 31, 2020, and this requirement would expire on March 31, 2022. 

Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and 

the Commander, USSF, to review the role of the reserve components within the USSF, consulting with the Chief, National Guard 

Bureau, on matters pertaining to the National Guard and the 

States, to ensure that reserve component personnel currently assigned to perform space duties continue to perform those duties in 

the USSF. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

report the results of this review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 

March 1, 2020, including the employment of reserve component 

personnel performing space duties before and after the creation of 

the USSF. 

These provisions would also require the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to review 

and establish processes to provide more effective integration of capabilities across the National Security Agency (NSA), National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), and SPACECOM in support 

of joint operations without impairing the authorities or responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence. The Secretary would 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

findings of such review not later than 180 days after the enactment 

of this Act. The committee is sensitive to concerns that these provisions’ reforms may disrupt command and control of both DOD and 

NRO space assets but notes that the tasking of NRO overhead assets today is not under the control of the Director of the NRO; instead, it is in the purview of tasking organizations subordinate to 

the Directors of the NSA and the NGA. Both of these agencies are 

already designated as combat support agencies under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (Public 

Law 99–433). 

The committee is also concerned with the lack of unity in space 

command and control operations. Currently, the Director of the 

NRO operates the NRO’s assets and capabilities involved in space 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) activities independently of the Commander, SPACECOM. This is a unity of command seam that must be addressed in the space warfighting domain. The committee notes that this issue is vital for the 

warfighter and therefore urges the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Air Force to 

consider potential solutions, including the designation of the NRO 

as a combat support agency for space ISR command and control operations. Additionally, the committee expects the Commander, 

SPACECOM, to continue to maintain open lines of communication 

with the intelligence community. 

These provisions would also establish the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy within the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense. The Assistant Secretary would be responsible 

for managing, implementing, and advising the Secretary of Defense 

on all policy decisions germane to the space domain. The committee 

believes that establishing a civilian in the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense with the primary responsibility for the oversight of 

299 

space policy would help to better integrate and synchronize space 

warfighting doctrine and policy within the Department. 

The committee is aware that the DOD originally proposed establishment and appointment of the Under Secretary of the Air Force 

for Space. To reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiencies as the 

U.S. Space Force is established, these provisions would instead require the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate the tasks and operations of the staff in support of the space warfighting mission. 

These provisions would require the Secretary to provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees as to whether the establishment of the Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space is 

required, due not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act. 

The committee believes that these provisions embody the core intent of the Department of Defense’s proposed reorganization of 

space forces while excluding additive bureaucracy and minimizing 

organizational seams. The committee acknowledges that this reorganization is a phased approach that emphasizes continued coordination with the Department by requiring the Department to provide assessments to the committee on future needs or changes required to ensure that this reorganization incorporates all assets 

necessary to conduct operations in the space warfighting domain. 

The committee notes that space dominance is undeniably a vital 

national interest and that space has become a contested domain. 

The committee believes that these provisions support the National 

Defense Strategy’s priority of addressing the threats in the space 

domain posed by our great power competitors by quickly streamlining and minimizing gaps in the space enterprise. 

Part II—Other Space Matters 

Repeal of requirement to establish Space Command as a 

subordinate unified command of the United States Strategic Command (sec. 1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

169 of title 10, United States Code, which established U.S. Space 

Command (SPACECOM) as a subordinate unified command of U.S. 

Strategic Command. The committee believes that the Commander 

of SPACECOM will be better able to integrate space operations 

with terrestrial operations of geographic combatant commands, improve the combatant command lexicon’s incorporation of the space 

domain, and advance the goal of security cooperation in space. 

Program to enhance and improve launch support and infrastructure (sec. 1612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to enhance infrastructure and improve support activities for the processing and launch 

of Department of Defense (DOD) small-class and medium-class 

payloads. The program would be used to: 

(1) Make investments in infrastructure to improve operations 

at ranges and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-licensed 

spaceports consistent with usage by the DOD; 

300 

(2) Take measures to normalize processes, systems, and 

products across ranges and spaceports to minimize burden on 

launch providers; and 

(3) Improve transparency, flexibility, and responsiveness for 

launch scheduling, factoring in proximity to and quantity of existing commercial airline flight patterns. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 270 days after the 

enactment of this Act, a report on the plan for such program. The 

report would include: 

(1) A description of plans and the resources needed to improve launch support infrastructure, utilities, support equipment, and range operations; 

(2) A description of plans to streamline and normalize processes, systems, and products at ranges and FAA-licensed 

spaceports to ensure consistency for range users; and 

(3) Recommendations for improving transparency, flexibility, 

and responsiveness. 

The committee continues to recognize the unique importance of 

FAA-licensed spaceports and encourages the use of such spaceports 

and launch and range complexes, when appropriate, for mid-to-low 

inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support of national security space priorities. The committee recognizes that DOD 

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 DOD less costly launch sites and services 

for these missions, an alternative to Vandenberg Air Force Base 

(AFB), and the use of 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 MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), Spaceport Camden in Georgia, and Oklahoma Air & Space Port, are available to help meet 

the requirements for the national security space program for Air 

Force Space Command, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, the 

Missile Defense Agency, and Space Development Agency. 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 committee recognizes the number of unique benefits that 

each FAA-licensed spaceport provides to the national security space 

program. The PSCA remains the only commercial polar launch 

range available in the United States, offering both orbital and suborbital capabilities. The committee applauds the use of the PSCA 

to conduct tests of both the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

system in 2017 as well as the Space and Missile Defense Command 

Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in 2014. PSCA has become a force 

multiplier in being the alternative West Coast range to Vandenberg 

AFB, providing additional capacity to test national security missions from an existing spaceport. 

301 

The MARS at Wallops Island, Virginia, provides medium-class 

and small-class launch capabilities for the DOD with its agency 

partners. The MARS provides assured and responsive access to 

mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads up to 15,300 lbs. The 

committee supports the National Reconnaissance Office’s planned 

launches of the L–111 and L–129 missions from MARS by the end 

of 2019. 

The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Burns Flat, Oklahoma, is 

the only spaceport in the United States to have a civilian FAA-approved Space Flight Corridor in the National Airspace System. 

This Space Flight corridor is unique because it is not within Military Operating Areas or within restricted airspace, which provides 

an operational capability for space launch operations and associated industries specialized in space-related activities. 

Spaceport America in New Mexico is a licensed inland spaceport 

that provides surface-to-space open sky launches landing in restricted flight zones. The New Mexico Spaceport is located next to 

White Sands Missile Range (WMSR) where the DOD controls the 

only restricted airspace in the country besides the White House. 

The committee notes that the DOD has studied hypervelocity testing at WSMR and its neighbor Spaceport America, which has horizontal and vertical launch and landing capabilities that 

hypervelocity vehicles require. The 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, as secure multimodal spaceports are advantageous for 

future hypervelocity development. Significant investments have 

been made at inland spaceports, which already have the infrastructure in place to accommodate smaller space launches for the Department. 

Modification of enhancement of positioning, navigation, and 

timing capacity (sec. 1613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that military Global Positioning System (GPS) user equipment terminals can incorporate 

signals from the European Union’s Galileo and Japan’s QZSS satellites, beginning with the implementation of open system architecture solutions to provide for robust positioning, navigation, and 

timing (PNT). The provision would enable the Secretary to waive 

this requirement on a case-by-case basis if certain criteria are met. 

The provision would also direct the Secretary to ensure that military GPS terminals can receive allied and non-allied PNT signals, 

provided that analysis indicates that the benefits outweigh the 

risks or that the risks can be appropriately mitigated. The committee encourages the Secretary, in carrying out this provision, to 

engage with relevant U.S. allies to ensure technical compatibility 

and ability to receive the signals. 

302 

Modification of term of Commander of Air Force Space 

Command (sec. 1614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2279c(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to change the term 

of the Commander, Air Force Space Command, from 6 years to 4 

years. The committee is aware that the requirement for the Commander to serve at least 6 years was established to address fragmented and diffuse space leadership responsibilities. However, the 

committee believes that progress has been made in the renewed 

focus on space operations leadership and that stability has been restored, and thus the 6-year requirement is no longer needed. 

Annual report on Space Command and Control program 

(sec. 1615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to provide annually a report on progress 

in executing the acquisition strategy and assessment of risk for the 

Space Command and Control program. The acquisition strategy, including schedule and other performance metrics, is that required 

by the Item of Special Interest on Space Command and Control 

specified elsewhere in the committee report. The report would be 

provided to the congressional defense committees with the annual 

submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2021 through fiscal 

year 2025. 

The provision would also direct the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the acquisition strategy and annual reports 

of the Secretary of the Air Force and provide a report on the review 

at a time mutually agreed upon between the congressional defense 

committees and the Comptroller General. 

The committee notes that the Space Command and Control program is more ambitious than its predecessor, the failed Joint Space 

Operations Center Mission System program. Given the increased 

scope, complexity, and ambition of the program, as well as the 

checkered history of previous programs, the committee believes 

that heightened oversight is required during development. 

Requirements for phase 2 of acquisition strategy for National Security Space Launch program (sec. 1616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

changes to the National Security Space Launch Program (NSSL) 

Phase 2 procurement. This provision would ensure that the original 

mission performance requirements proposed by the acquisition authority remain as specified in support of agile and effective launch 

support to the warfighter. The provision would also limit awards 

for national security space launches under the Launch Services 

Procurement Other Transaction Authority agreement to a 

downselect of no more than two providers. Finally, the provision 

would require the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that launch 

services are procured from industry providers that utilize launch 

vehicles or families of vehicles that meet all government requirements with respect to delivery of required payloads to reference orbits. 

The committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force for demonstrated commitment to the policy of assured access to space and 

303 

for good stewardship of financial resources in the Launch Services 

Agreement program. Assured access to space and disciplined defense spending have increased importance in great power competition with China and Russia. 

The committee recognizes that unreliable commercial launch 

market forecasts that do not adequately account for competition 

and industrial base concerns have contributed to suboptimal government decisions. Phase 2 must be conducted in a manner that 

ensures that launch providers remain viable competitors and 

strong contributors to the space industrial base. 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 

Activities 

Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

and Security (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would redesignate 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Intelligence and Security and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security respectively and 

make conforming changes to existing law. 

The committee notes that the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence has assumed additional responsibilities, to 

include personnel security, physical security, industrial security, 

protection of classified information and controlled unclassified information, and security clearance investigations, and believes that 

the redesignation more appropriately reflects its current responsibilities. The committee does not intend for this provision to modify the authorities, responsibilities, roles, or missions of the aforementioned Under Secretary. 

Repeal of certain requirements relating to integration of 

Department of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 1622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

426 of title 10, United States Code, which requires the establishment of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 

Integration Council. The committee notes that the Department of 

Defense established the Defense Intelligence and Security Integration Council (DISIC). The DISIC is chaired by the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Intelligence and its membership comprises officials 

from the defense intelligence enterprise; the DISIC is responsible 

for conducting recurring reviews to improve integration and coordination across the defense intelligence enterprise. In light of the establishment of the DISIC as a successor organization to the ISR Integration Council, the committee believes that the statutory requirement in section 426 of title 10, United States Code, is no 

longer necessary. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense 

to periodically update the committee on the activities of the DISIC. 

304 

Improving the onboarding methodology for certain intelligence personnel (sec. 1623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, consistent with Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, to provide several reports relating to the onboarding methodology for certain intelligence personnel. 

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities 

on facilitating access to local criminal records historical 

data (sec. 1624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency to 

carry out a set of activities relating to facilitating access by the 

Agency to local criminal records historical data in support of its 

personnel security mission. The committee notes that elsewhere in 

this Act is an increase of $15.0 million in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, to support the set of activities 

authorized in this section. 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace-Related Matters 

Reorientation of Big Data Platform program (sec. 1631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to reorient the Department of Defense’s Big 

Data Platform program by establishing a common baseline and security classification scheme for the collection, querying, analysis, 

and accessibility of a common and comprehensive set of metadata 

from sensors, applications, and systems deployed across the Department of Defense Information Network. 

The committee recognizes the potential of the Big Data Platform 

technology as a cyber situational awareness tool but is frustrated 

by the current status of its use across the Department of Defense. 

Big Data Platform instances are not fed key metadata for analysis 

and querying, are segregated from one another, and function, within the Department’s cybersecurity architecture, largely as incident 

response tools at the component-level rather than real-time situational awareness tools at the enterprise-level. 

Zero-based review of Department of Defense cyber and information technology personnel (sec. 1632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

heads of Department of Defense departments, agencies, and components to complete zero-based reviews of the cyber and information 

technology personnel in those departments, agencies, and components. The reviews would: (1) Assess military, civilian, and contractor positions and personnel performing cyber and information 

technology missions in the Department for efficacy, efficiency, and 

relevance; (2) Analyze capability gaps; and (3) Recommend road 

maps for correcting these gaps. The committee is aware of the 

growth of cybersecurity personnel in the Department of Defense 

over the past few years but is concerned that some of these roles 

305 

may be duplicative or no longer necessary as cybersecurity approaches have evolved. 

The provision would require that these reviews be completed and 

submitted to the Principal Cyber Adviser (PCA), Chief Information 

Officer (CIO), and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness (USD (P&R)) by January 1, 2021. After receiving the 

findings of these reviews, the PCA, CIO, and USD (P&R) would 

provide recommendations on the implementation of these road 

maps to the heads of the Department of Defense departments, 

agencies, and components and would oversee and assist in the implementation of these roadmaps and recommendations. 

Study on improving cyber career paths in the Navy (sec. 

1633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study on improving cyber career 

paths in the Navy. The provision would also require the Secretary 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no 

later than October 1, 2020, on the findings of the study. 

The committee is aware of the independent Cybersecurity Readiness Review that was commissioned by the Secretary of the Navy, 

and completed earlier this year, to examine cybersecurity readiness 

across the Navy in the areas of culture, people, structure, processes, and resources. The committee applauds the Navy for conducting this review to recommend areas where the Navy can improve its cybersecurity readiness. The committee believes that conducting this review is an important step in increasing the Navy’s 

cybersecurity and encourages the Secretary to quickly develop an 

implementation plan to address the recommendations in the review. The committee is particularly concerned about the findings 

related to the cyber workforce. The committee is concerned that the 

Navy lags behind the Army and the Air Force in charting career 

paths for military and civilian personnel designed to generate expertise in offensive and defensive cyber warfare. 

Framework to enhance cybersecurity of the United States 

defense industrial base (sec. 1634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a consistent, comprehensive framework to enhance the cybersecurity of the U.S. defense industrial 

base and to provide the congressional defense committees a briefing 

on the framework not later than March 11, 2020. The provision 

would require the Secretary, in the development of this framework, 

to consult with industry groups and contractors in the defense industrial base as well as the Director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST). The framework would include: 

(1) Identification of cybersecurity standards and requirements imposed on the defense industrial base; (2) Responsibilities of the 

prime contractor and all subcontractors in the supply chain for implementing those standards and requirements; (3) A plan to provide cybersecurity guidance and assistance to contractors; and (4) 

Methods and programs for defining and managing controlled unclassified information. 

306 

The provision would also mandate that the Department of Defense (DOD): (1) Provide a plan that includes direct technical support or assistance to contractors in complying with the new framework; (2) Consider how to tailor cybersecurity requirements for 

small contractors based on risk; (3) Consider how to provide additional assistance to small companies in the form of training, mentoring, and other measures; and (4) Evaluate both incentives and 

penalties for prime contractors and subcontractors for cybersecurity 

performance. Finally, the provision requires that the Secretary of 

Defense provide quarterly updates on the status of development 

and implementation of the framework. The committee recognizes 

that small companies are in general challenged by a lack of resources, both monetary and technical, to meet cybersecurity requirements. The committee emphasizes that the DOD must exercise care to ensure that its policies and procedures preserve and 

protect its industrial base rather than diminish it. 

The committee is concerned that contractors within the defense 

industrial base are an inviting target for our adversaries, who have 

been conducting cyberattacks to steal critical military technologies. 

Currently, the Department of Defense mandates that defense contractors meet the requirements of NIST Special Publication 800– 

171 but does not audit compliance to this standard. The committee 

is concerned that prime contractors are not overseeing their subcontractors’ compliance with these cybersecurity requirements 

through the entire supply chain and that the Department lacks access to information about its contractors’ subcontractors. The committee believes that prime contractors need to be held responsible 

and accountable for securing Department of Defense technology 

and sensitive information and for delivering products and capabilities that are uncompromised. Developing a framework to enhance 

the cybersecurity of the defense industrial base will serve as an important first step toward securing the supply chain. 

Role of Chief Information Officer in improving enterprisewide cybersecurity (sec. 1635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would specify the 

responsibilities of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as they relate to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) cybersecurity. Section 

909 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91) clarified that the CIO is responsible for the information technology, networking, information assurance, cybersecurity, and cyber capability architectures of the DOD and provided 

a budget review authority to the CIO to carry out these responsibilities. This provision would levy additional responsibilities on the 

CIO for these architectures, including the modernization of the Department’s cybersecurity architecture, the mandating of cybersecurity data sharing, and the acquisition of additional computing infrastructure to meet the Department’s cybersecurity needs. 

The committee is encouraged by the current CIO’s commitment 

to moving the Department’s computing infrastructure to the cloud, 

to driving forward its artificial intelligence initiative, and to modernizing its cybersecurity. The committee believes that the latter in 

particular is of paramount importance and demands the CIO’s 

highest priority. The Department has for years struggled to achieve 

307 

private sector-standard cybersecurity of its unclassified networks 

despite considerable investment and efforts. Much of this is due to 

the sheer size and diversity of the Department’s networks, which 

pose substantial challenges to cybersecurity architects and operators at the enterprise-level. 

As a result, the Department maintains extensive and expensive 

cybersecurity capabilities on its perimeter; manages network operations through the Joint Regional Security Stacks, which the most 

recent Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report described as ‘‘unable to help network defenders protect the network 

against operationally realistic [cyberattacks]’’; relies on cybersecurity service providers’ security operations centers to monitor local 

network activity; deploys cyber protection teams to critical networks, often in response to suspected malicious activity; and relies 

on myriad endpoint defense products to defend against 

cyberattacks at the edge. These layers are typically disjointed and 

connected only through manual instructions from operator to operator. The Department’s cybersecurity architecture is thus characterized by inconsistency, opacity, confusion, labor-intensity, and 

misalignment of resources. 

The committee recognizes that management of this architecture 

necessarily requires coordination with the Principal Cyber Advisor 

and the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command but reiterates that 

the responsibility for the architecture lies, in statute, with the CIO. 

The committee thus urges the CIO to aggressively work to modernize the Department’s cybersecurity architecture to improve enterprise-level visibility, command and control, and operations. This 

modernization will require substantial reconfiguration of component-level budgets and activities; the committee expects the CIO to 

use his budget authority widely and effectively to effect this necessary transformation. This modernization will also require reevaluation and rationalization of existing Department-wide cybersecurity programs, capabilities, and operations, including the Joint 

Regional Security Stacks, Host Based Security System, Joint 

Forces Headquarters-Department of Defense Information Network, 

the cyber protection teams, and the cybersecurity service providers. 

Quarterly assessments of the readiness of cyber forces (sec. 

1636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop metrics for the assessment of the 

readiness of the Cyber Mission Force and to brief the congressional 

defense committees on these metrics within 90 days of the enactment of this Act. The provision would also require the briefing of 

readiness of the Cyber Mission Force, informed by these metrics, 

as part of the quarterly cyber operations updates, effective 180 

days after the enactment of this Act. 

The committee applauds the Cyber Mission Force’s recent 

achievement of full operational capability. As these teams continue 

to mature, the committee believes that it is important to develop 

and report a standard set of metrics to address the Department’s 

ability to conduct cyberspace operations based on capability and capacity of personnel, equipment, training, and equipment condition. 

The committee believes that these readiness reporting metrics 

308 

should be standard across the Services and should be consistent 

with readiness reporting throughout the Department. The committee also believes that it is important for these metrics to be reported as part of the quarterly cyber operations briefings to provide 

context to current operations. The committee recognizes that the 

Cyber Mission Force’s mission posture—including the accesses and 

tools developed by and available to the National Mission Teams 

and Combat Mission Teams, the responsiveness of the Cyber Protection Teams, and the operational effectiveness of these teams— 

is distinct from its readiness but also expects to be kept apprised 

of this mission posture through its cyber quarterly briefings. 

Control and analysis of Department of Defense data stolen 

through cyberspace (sec. 1637) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD) in the event that 

DOD data have been stolen or are suspected to have been stolen 

via cyber means. The provision provides a series of requirements 

for the DOD when it directly controls the data or access to the 

data. The provision would further require that, when the DOD does 

not have unilateral control of the data and when law enforcement 

or intelligence community information controls have been imposed 

on the handling of and access to the data, the Secretary of Defense 

coordinate with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) or Director of National Intelligence (DNI), as appropriate, to 

carry out the same series of requirements. 

The committee is aware of a number of incidents in which critical 

data were stolen from DOD contractors but the Department was 

very slow to: (1) Inform the appropriate leadership in the Department; (2) Inform the Congress; (3) Assess the damage resulting 

from the breach; and (4) Launch counterintelligence and other remediation efforts to correct the damage. In some cases, the Congress has learned of such breaches from media reports months 

after the events, only to find that DOD leaders remain in the dark. 

One reason for this unacceptable pattern of tardiness is that law 

enforcement and intelligence community controls are placed on access to the data and on knowledge of the breach. Access to the data 

may be limited to a small number of DOD subject matter experts 

who have to be cleared for access to the data and physically deployed to a hosted repository with limited query and analysis tools. 

The committee believes that for all significant breaches involving 

the loss or potential loss of critical DOD information, the Department should gain control of the data that have been or potentially 

have been exfiltrated, place in a modern data center, apply modern 

information technology tools to analyze the data rapidly to determine the nature and severity of the incident, ensure that appropriate officials are fully informed, and devise and implement rapid 

countermeasures and remediation measures. These data transfers, 

analyses, and countermeasures can and must be conducted in a 

highly secure manner, with access limited to those with an appropriate need-to-know. These measures, and DOD’s security controls, 

do not need to interfere with law enforcement investigations, and 

DOD’s national security equities must be given just weight by 

DOD’s partners in dealing with serious breaches. 

309 

The committee thus urges the Secretary of Defense to institutionalize the requirements of this provision through formal agreements with the Director of the FBI and the DNI that accommodate 

all parties’ relevant counterintelligence and mission requirements. 

Accreditation standards and processes for cybersecurity 

and information technology products and services (sec. 

1638) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer (CIO) to 

assess the accreditation standards and processes of the military departments and other components of the DOD for cybersecurity and 

information technology products and services. The provision would 

also require the CIO to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the assessment by April 1, 2020. 

The committee is aware that the DOD utilizes different accreditation standards (e.g., Risk Management Framework, Development 

Security Operations or DevSecOps) and processes (e.g., reciprocity) 

for cybersecurity and information technology products and services, 

depending on whether they are custom-built or commercial off-theshelf products. Disparity in standards and duplication of testing 

often result in delays, complexity, and inefficiency. The committee 

believes that it is important to streamline the accreditation process 

to enable the DOD to more quickly adopt cutting-edge cybersecurity tools across the DOD enterprise. 

Extension of authorities for Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1639) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1652 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) by making a technical correction and changing the final due date for the Cyberspace 

Solarium Commission’s final report to February 1, 2020. The committee recognizes that the commission had its first meeting in early 

April and needs an extension in order to fully study the immensely 

complex issues that it has been tasked to contemplate. The committee hopes to receive the commission’s final report and the Secretary of Defense’s, the Director of National Intelligence’s, and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security’s assessments of the report’s findings in time to inform the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2021. 

Modification of elements of assessment required for termination of dual-hat arrangement for Commander of the 

United States Cyber Command (sec. 1640) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1642 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) by requiring the Secretary of Defense 

and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prior to the termination 

of the dual-hatted arrangement in which the Commander of United 

States Cyber Command serves as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), to certify that: (1) Processes to deconflict military cyber operations and national intelligence operations have 

been put in place; (2) Tools, weapons, and accesses used in and 

310 

available for military cyber operations are sufficient for achieving 

required effects and United States Cyber Command is capable of 

acquiring or developing these tools, weapons, and accesses; and (3) 

The Cyber Mission Force has demonstrated the capacity to execute 

the cyber missions of the Department, including the execution of 

national-level missions through cyberspace, defense of the Department of Defense Information Network, and support for other combatant commands, including targeting of adversary military assets. 

The committee is encouraged by recent mission successes of 

Cyber Command, enabled by close cooperation with the NSA. The 

committee believes that Cyber Command is, however, still maturing as a combatant command and still relies on a strong partnership with NSA to execute the Department of Defense’s cyber strategy. The committee therefore believes that eliminating the dual-hat 

arrangement would be premature at this time. As Cyber Command 

becomes increasingly active, it will continue to rely on the NSA’s 

intelligence, tools, and weapons. The termination of the Cyber 

Command-NSA dual-hat could complicate this critical relationship. 

The committee therefore believes that the dual-hat should be preserved until Cyber Command demonstrates the ability to acquire 

its own capabilities and carry out its missions effectively. 

Use of National Security Agency cybersecurity expertise to 

support acquisition of commercial cybersecurity products (sec. 1641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish as 

a mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) the advising and 

assistance of the Department of Defense (DOD) in its acquisition 

and adaptation of cybersecurity products and services from industry, especially the commercial cybersecurity sector. 

The committee believes that the entire DOD, and especially the 

NSA, should leverage the considerable investment, development, 

and talent in the commercial cybersecurity industry to satisfy the 

Department’s cybersecurity requirements. The Congress has legislated the formal preference for the acquisition of commercial items 

in the past, most notably in section 8104 of the Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355), but the Department too often continues to develop its own hardware and software, 

including for cybersecurity capabilities. The Department still relies 

on internally engineered solutions and custom-developed products 

and services from traditional defense contractors, despite the fact 

that commercial cybersecurity products and services often outperform these capabilities, scale better, tend to be more supportable, and ultimately cost less. The committee believes that the Department must therefore become a more educated consumer of commercially available and deployed cybersecurity products and services. In order to do so effectively, the NSA must assist the Department. As the Department’s largest center of technical cybersecurity 

expertise, the NSA is uniquely positioned to do so, as shown by 

their successful utilization of commercially-available cybersecurity 

products in SharkSeer. 

311 

Study on future cyber warfighting capabilities of Department of Defense (sec. 1642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to direct the Defense Science Board to carry 

out a study on the future cyber warfighting capabilities of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would also require the 

Secretary to provide the Board with timely access to appropriate 

resources to conduct the analysis. The provision would require the 

Board to submit a final report on the study to the Secretary no 

later than October 1, 2021, and would direct the Secretary to submit the report to the congressional defense committees, along with 

any comments he may have, no later than November 1, 2021. The 

Board’s study would include: (1) A technical evaluation of the Joint 

Cyber Warfighting Architecture (JCWA) of the DOD; (2) A technical evaluation of the Department’s tool development and acquisition programs; (3) An evaluation of the operational planning and 

targeting of U.S. Cyber Command; and (4) Recommendations for 

legislative and administrative action relating to the DOD’s future 

cyber warfighting capabilities. 

The committee supports the acquisition of cutting-edge cyberspace warfighting capabilities in the development of the JCWA but 

is concerned that the effort to develop this joint warfighting vision 

is disjointed. Specifically, the committee is concerned that aspects 

of the JCWA, including the Unified Platform, Joint Cyber Command and Control, and Persistent Cyber Training Environment, 

may lack cohesion with the Cyber Mission Force and that individual components controlled by the Services are not appropriately 

synchronized with the JCWA vision. Therefore, the committee expects that these and the Department’s other future programs, capabilities, and operations support U.S. Cyber Command’s joint 

warfighting strategy and the Department’s larger cyber strategy. 

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for cyber 

operations-peculiar capability development projects 

(sec. 1643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretaries of military departments to use money authorized for appropriation for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to develop cyber 

operations-peculiar capabilities up to $3.0 million annually. The 

provision would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to use its 

O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation 

of cyber capabilities that would be developed and used within the 

1-year appropriation period. 

The committee believes that cyberspace threats are a continuing 

concern for the DOD, and, while the Services are working to develop agile teams to respond to cyberspace threats and opportunities, cyber capability development is hamstrung by an acquisition 

funding process that is often incompatible with real-time operations and innovation. The committee understands that current 

law often requires coordinated use of up to three different types of 

funding: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, O&M, 

and Procurement. Coordinated use of multiple types of funds can 

lead to bureaucratic requirements and reviews that ultimately 

hamper cyber capability development within operationally relevant 

312 

timeframes. The committee believes that using O&M funds for 

these purposes can increase operational flexibility and reduce planning and budgeting overhead. 

Expansion of authority for access and information relating 

to cyberattacks on Department of Defense operationally 

critical contractors (sec. 1644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 391 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the ability of the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to react immediately to reports of intrusions that may affect critical DOD data. The committee understands the importance of commercial service providers to the DOD 

and believes that the security and integrity of these providers is 

absolutely critical to the effective management of the worldwide logistics enterprise, especially during a contingency or wartime. 

Therefore, the committee believes that the same level of proactive 

DOD support in responding to cyber incidents should be authorized 

with respect to these providers as that authorized for cleared defense contractors. 

Briefing on memorandum of understanding relating to joint 

operational planning and control of cyber attacks of national scale (sec. 1645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing, not later than March 1, 

2020, to the congressional defense and homeland security committees on the Joint Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 

signed by the Secretary of Defense on October 6, 2018. 

The committee supports the DOD–DHS MOU but is concerned 

that it does not fully address the need for joint operational planning for major cyberattacks on the country or for unity of effort and 

rapid response to such attacks. The committee is also unclear as 

to whether the National Cyber Strategy, published in September 

2018, provides for a standing joint multi-agency organization and 

staff to plan and direct operational responses to cyberattacks of national scale. 

Study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring and 

manning elements of the Joint Force HeadquartersCyber organizations, Joint Mission Operations Centers, 

and Cyber Operations-Integrated Planning Elements 

(sec. 1646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) to conduct 

a study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring and manning elements of the following: (1) Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber 

organizations; (2) Joint Mission Operations Centers; and (3) Cyber 

Operations-Integrated Planning Elements. The provision would require the PCA to submit a report on the study to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

313 

Cyber governance structures and Principal Cyber Advisors 

on military cyber force matters (sec. 1647) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

secretary of the military departments to designate a Principal 

Cyber Advisor to act as the principal advisor to the secretary on 

the cyber forces, cyber programs, and cybersecurity matters of the 

military department, including matters relating to weapons systems, enabling infrastructure, and the defense industrial base. The 

committee encourages the secretaries to consider designating an 

existing official, such as the deputy undersecretary of the military 

department or the chief information officer of the military department. The provision would require each secretary to review the 

military department’s current governance model for cybersecurity 

with respect to current authorities and responsibilities. The provision would also require each secretary to brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the review no later than February 1, 2021. 

Designation of test networks for testing and accreditation of 

cybersecurity products and services (sec. 1648) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to designate three test networks for the testing and accreditation of cybersecurity products and services. The 

committee understands the importance of test networks in facilitating the consistent and timely accreditation of cutting-edge cybersecurity tools for the defense of the Department of Defense networks. 

Consortia of universities to advise Secretary of Defense on 

cybersecurity matters (sec. 1649) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish one 

or more consortia to advise and assist the Secretary of Defense on 

matters relating to cybersecurity. The consortium or consortia established under shall consist of universities that have been designated as centers of academic excellence by the Director of the National Security Agency or the Secretary of Homeland Security. The 

functions of the consortium are (1) to provide to the Secretary access to the expertise of the members of the consortium on matters 

relating to cybersecurity; (2) to align the efforts of consortia members in support of the Department of Defense; and (3) to act as a 

facilitator in responding to Department requests relating to advice 

and assistance on matters relating to cybersecurity and to provide 

feedback to the Secretary from members of the consortium. 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces 

Modification of authorities relating to nuclear command, 

control, and communications system (sec. 1661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer statutory responsibility for policy, oversight, and coordination for nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) programs from 

the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. This 

change would align the statute to reflect the Department’s plan to 

314 

improve governance of the NC3 system and the re-assignment of 

the NC3 Principal Staff Assistant role to the Under Secretary of 

Acquisition and Sustainment. 

Expansion of officials required to conduct biennial assessments of delivery platforms for nuclear weapons and 

nuclear command and control system (sec. 1662) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add the Commander of the United States Air Forces in Europe to a list of officials required to report biennially on the safety, security, reliability, sustainability, performance, and military effectiveness of 

the delivery platforms for nuclear weapons and nuclear command 

and control systems for which each official has responsibility. 

The committee does not intend to create a requirement for additional inspections. Instead, this provision is intended to require the 

aggregation and submittal to the Congress of data gathered on the 

current inspection schedule. 

Conforming amendment to Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (sec. 1663) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make certain 

conforming changes to the governing statute of the Council on 

Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System, section 171a of title 10, United States Code. 

Prohibition on reduction of the intercontinental ballistic 

missiles of the United States (sec. 1664) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2020 funds to reduce the responsiveness, alert level, or quantity of deployed U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles to fewer than 400. The provision would 

provide an exception to this prohibition for activities related to 

maintenance and sustainment and activities to ensure safety, security, or reliability. 

Briefing on long-range standoff weapon and sea-launched 

cruise missile (sec. 1665) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in 

consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a briefing on opportunities to increase 

commonality between the long-range standoff weapon (LRSO) and 

the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM–N) and to leverage 

technologies developed in the course of the LRSO program for the 

SLCM–N. 

Sense of the Senate on industrial base for Ground-Based 

Strategic Deterrent program (sec. 1666) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that maintaining a viable domestic industrial 

base for large solid rocket motors is in the national security interest of the United States and that, in carrying out the GroundVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
315 

Based Strategic Deterrent program, the Secretary of Defense 

should strive to maintain competition and otherwise act to preserve 

the industrial base. 

Sense of the Senate on nuclear deterrence commitments of 

the United States (sec. 1667) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that dual-capable aircraft (DCA) provide visible 

assurance to allies and serve as a tangible demonstration of U.S. 

extended deterrence guarantees. 

As part of its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United States currently maintains a small 

number of forward-deployed DCA and nonstrategic nuclear weapons in European countries. Though limited in size, the committee 

continues to believe the DCA mission is an essential component of 

U.S. and NATO defense postures. The Department plans to sustain 

this capability by replacing the current aging DCA with nuclear-capable F–35 aircraft, and the President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2020 included $71.3 million as part of an ongoing effort to certify the F–35A for this mission. 

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review introduced two new supplemental nuclear capabilities in response to a deteriorating threat 

environment and perceived gaps in U.S. deterrence posture. The 

committee believes that the F–35A, particularly when armed with 

the life-extended B61–12 nuclear bomb, will significantly enhance 

regional deterrence posture and that accelerating the deployment 

of this capability could provide a treaty-compliant response to 

changing threat conditions that also assures NATO allies of U.S. 

commitment to their security. 

Accordingly, not later than January 15, 2020, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, 

to provide a report assessing the feasibility and advisability of accelerating activities necessary to certify the F–35A to perform DCA 

operations. 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative missile defense program co-development and 

co-production (sec. 1671) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize not 

more than $95.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 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. The provision would 

also authorize $50.0 million for the MDA to provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the David’s Sling Weapon 

System and $55.0 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 provision would also provide a series of certification requirements relating to implementation of the below relevant bilateral agreements before disbursal of 

these funds. These funds are a subset of the $500.0 million total 

316 

authorized to be appropriated for cooperative missile defense programs with Israel within this Act. 

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 continue 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. 

Expansion of national missile defense policy and program 

redesignation (sec. 1672) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate regarding the threat to U.S. national security 

from ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles. The provision would 

also modify the statement of policy contained in section 1681 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328) to include defense against cruise and hypersonic 

missiles and would require the Secretary of Defense to redesignate 

all strategies, policy, programs, and systems to reflect this policy. 

Acceleration of the deployment of persistent space-based 

sensor architecture (sec. 1673) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should rapidly 

develop and deploy a persistent, space-based sensor architecture as 

soon as technically feasible. The provision would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to assign to the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) the primary responsibility for the development 

and deployment of a hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor 

(HBTSS). The provision would also require the Comptroller and the 

Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to certify to 

the congressional defense committees whether the HBTSS program 

is fully funded in the future years defense program submitted with 

the fiscal year 2021 budget request. The provision would also require the Director of the MDA to begin on-orbit testing of an 

HBTSS no later than December 31, 2021, with allowance for a 

waiver if the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report including a number of elements. Finally, 

the provision would require the Secretary to submit a report on efforts relating to space-based sensing and tracking capabilities for 

317 

missile defense at the MDA, the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, the Air Force, and the Space Development Agency. 

Nonstandard acquisition processes of Missile Defense Agency (sec. 1674) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate in support of the nonstandard acquisition processes used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The provision 

would also prohibit obligation or expenditure of funds authorized to 

be appropriated by this Act to change these processes until the Secretary of Defense has consulted with a number of senior defense officials with responsibility for aspects of missile defense, submitted 

a report to the congressional defense committees, and allowed 270 

days to elapse after submittal of the report. 

Plan for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (sec. 1675) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the delay in the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) program, including: (1) A description of 

the reason for the delay; (2) An overview of the revised program 

schedule; (3) Any recommendations for accelerating the fielding 

schedule; (4) A timeline, any additional funding required, and a 

risk assessment for such recommendations; and (5) Any recommendations suggested by contractors to the Director that were 

not adopted and an explanation as to why. 

The committee supports the MDA’s efforts to continue to improve 

the reliability, producibility, and maintainability of a more effective 

kill vehicle for the ground-based midcourse defense system, including by leveraging mature technologies from fielded systems when 

appropriate, in order to better defend the homeland from longrange ballistic missile threats. 

Report on improving ground-based midcourse defense element of ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1676) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report on options to increase the capability, capacity, and reliability of the 

ground-based midcourse defense element of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system. 

Sense of the Senate on recent Missile Defense Agency tests 

(sec. 1677) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on a highly successful 2018 Missile Defense 

Agency flight test campaign. 

Sense of the Senate on missile defense technology development priorities (sec. 1678) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the importance of advanced missile defense 

technologies to preventing and defeating the rapidly expanding offensive missile threat. 

318 

Publication of environmental impact statement prepared 

for certain potential future missile defense sites (sec. 

1679) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to make available to the public the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in accordance with section 227(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). 

The committee notes that section 227 required the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to evaluate candidate sites for a potential future deployment of additional ground-based interceptors for homeland missile defense, including preparation of the EIS for each potential Continental Interceptor Site. This provision would require 

the Secretary to publish the EIS in a publicly available format. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Matters relating to military operations in the information 

environment (sec. 1681) 

The committee recommends a provision that would affirm the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military operations 

in the information environment, including clandestine operations, 

to defend the United States, its allies, and its interests, including 

in response to malicious activities carried out against the United 

States or a United States person by a foreign power. The provision 

would also clarify that military operations in the information environment 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 believes that military operations in the information environment are traditional military activities and are essential contributors to military effectiveness in modern warfare. The 

committee thus sees military operations in the information environment as key to the National Defense Strategy and its implementation. 

Extension of authorization for protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft (sec. 1682) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an 

extension of the authorization for protection of certain facilities and 

assets from unmanned aircraft. 

Hard and deeply buried targets (sec. 1683) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to the congressional defense committees a classified report on hard and deeply 

buried targets, including an estimate of the total number of highvalue targets and an assessment of the current ability to hold such 

targets at risk using existing and projected U.S. nuclear and conventional capabilities. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to ensure that the United 

States is able to hold such targets at risk by 2025 and to certify 

annually that such plan is being implemented. 

319 

Items of Special Interest 

Acquisition plan for Space Command and Control program 

The committee is concerned that the Space Command and Control program is more ambitious than its failed predecessor, the 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (JMS) program. 

The Space Command and Control program is software-intensive 

and intended to replace numerous legacy program requirements 

that the JMS failed to address. Due to the increased scope and ambition of the program, as well as the checkered history of previous 

program development, the committee believes that heightened 

oversight is required during the early phases of development. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to develop an acquisition strategy for the Space Command and 

Control program and provide a report on this strategy to the congressional defense committees, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition and Sustainment, and the Comptroller General of the 

United States no later than October 31, 2019. 

The report on the acquisition strategy shall include: (1) An acquisition schedule over the next future years defense program; (2) The 

requirements for each phase of acquisition, including critical management events; (3) A description of the structure of the program, 

including development, testing, production, integration, and lifecycle support for the program; (4) The metrics to be tracked and 

evaluated and the means and manner in which such metrics shall 

be reported, including any necessary software to be developed or 

acquired; and (5) The assignment of management and oversight responsibilities and authorities to ensure coordination and synchronization of development efforts across Air Force components; and (6) 

The amount of funds necessary to carry out the program across the 

future years defense program and a description of the contracting 

and business strategies to be implemented, including the integration of commercially available products. 

The committee notes the requirement for continued annual reports with reviews and reports by the Comptroller General of the 

United States is found elsewhere in this Act. 

Addressing the Department of Defense’s cyber red team 

vulnerabilities 

The committee recognizes the importance of crowdsourced security testing programs, such as Hack the Pentagon, that utilize technology platforms and ethical security researchers to test for cyber 

vulnerabilities within the Department of Defense (DOD). Third 

party security researchers could offer the DOD supplemental manpower and expertise needed to find cyber vulnerabilities in weapon 

platforms, databases of personally identifiable information, health 

data repositories, and other critical DOD systems in order to fix 

these vulnerabilities. The committee is aware that the Department 

funded a multi-year effort to enhance the scope of third-party cyber 

testing but that resources given to the program are insufficient to 

address the sheer size and scope of potential vulnerabilities. Therefore, in order to better secure the Department from cyberattacks 

and vulnerabilities, the committee encourages the Department to 

broaden its use of third party crowdsourced security platforms 

320 

where necessary and appropriate to inform cybersecurity priorities, 

policy, and requirements. 

Airborne Launch Control System sustainment 

The Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS) and its trainer 

were built in the 1980s and still rely on 8-bit processors, which industry no longer supports. There is also a diminishing number of 

experts that can rebuild the existing units, which must last 

through the recapitalization of the E–6B aircraft. In addition, the 

single trainer for this system is housed at Offutt Air Force Base 

and was severely damaged during the recent flood. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing, not later than February 28, 2020, to the congressional defense 

committees on the supply chain to support continued use of the 

current ALCS and efforts to rebuild the trainer unit. 

Assessment of replacement of E–4B and E–6 aircraft 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is conducting an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to determine the path forward for replacing the E–4B and E–6 aircraft, which perform crucial missions for nuclear command, control, and communications 

and require timely recapitalization. The committee also understands that the Navy and Air Force are assessing options that include combining both missions onto a single aircraft or moving either or both to an executive airlift platform. Given the importance 

of the mission and the long duration, span of requirements, and 

cost of this effort, the committee directs the Comptroller General 

of the United States to undertake a multi-year effort to monitor 

this program, including mission, requirements, cost, scope, and 

schedule. The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide 

a briefing on the preliminary findings of this effort to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2020, with a first 

year report to follow at a time agreed to at the briefing. Since the 

committee expects that this will be a long-term effort, an out-year 

reporting schedule will also be agreed upon at the time of the delivery of the preliminary findings. 

Additionally, not later than 60 days after the completion of the 

ongoing AoA, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the 

study’s results and associated next steps. 

Assessment of the cybersecurity of Department of Defense 

classified networks 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

deployed a substantial number and variety of cybersecurity sensors, systems, and applications on the unclassified networks of the 

Department of Defense Information Network (DODIN) and collects 

large volumes of data and metadata about activities on the unclassified DODIN that are analyzed to detect cyber intrusions. However, the Department has not similarly actively defended the Secret 

and Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) levels of the 

DODIN, relying instead on the separation of these levels from the 

public Internet for cybersecurity. 

321 

The committee directs the Chief Information Officer, in coordination with the Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) and the Commander 

of U.S. Cyber Command, to conduct an analysis and provide the results to the congressional defense and intelligence committees no 

later than March 1, 2020, comparing and contrasting the levels of 

cybersecurity on the DODIN networks carrying unclassified, Secret, 

and SCI data. The analysis should assess: (1) Whether air-gapping 

or isolating classified networks is a sufficient cybersecurity measure; (2) Whether classified networks should have increased levels 

of protection in light of current and future threats; (3) Whether 

these enhancements, if necessary, should be the same as or similar 

to cybersecurity defenses deployed on DOD unclassified networks 

or whether classified networks demand unique or more sophisticated cybersecurity measures; (4) How DOD cybersecurity service 

providers and the Cyber Mission Force should posture themselves 

to defend classified networks; and (5) What the rough order of magnitude costs of any necessary enhancements would be. The PCA 

Cross-Functional Team shall coordinate the analysis and preparation of the report. 

Briefing on integration of commercial satellite communications capabilities 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s (DOD) continued efforts to integrate commercial satellite communications 

(COMSATCOM) capabilities into the DOD satellite communications 

(SATCOM) architecture and transition to a long-term, integrated 

partnership with commercial operators. This new approach is intended to ensure that the DOD receives the best SATCOM value 

on a more secure, cost-effective, and resilient basis. The committee 

commends the Air Force for its ongoing efforts, including the transfer of COMSATCOM procurement authority from the Defense Information Systems Agency to Air Force Space Command. As the 

Department recapitalizes its space architecture for wideband and 

protected communications and transitions to greater reliance on 

commercial capabilities, the committee encourages the Department 

to prioritize adequate and stable funding for related activities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a briefing on efforts to integrate 

COMSATCOM capabilities into the DOD SATCOM architecture by 

March 15, 2020. The briefing shall include an assessment of: (1) 

Clear lines of authority for integration of COMSATCOM capabilities into a SATCOM architecture; (2) Tools and technologies necessary to improve efficiency, resiliency, usability, and functionality 

for the DOD COMSATCOM user community; (3) Funding and 

resourcing required to adequately prioritize and accelerate 

COMSATCOM integration; and (4) Innovative acquisition approaches that enable long-term arrangements for COMSATCOM 

services, consistent with existing contracting authorities and appropriations law. 

Briefing on Joint Cyber Command and Control program 

The committee understands the importance of the Joint Cyber 

Command and Control (JCC2) program for situational awareness 

322 

and battle management for cyberspace operations at the operational and strategic levels. The committee is aware of recent 

prototyping activities within U.S. Cyber Command to leverage previous Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Strategic 

Capabilities Office efforts to meet this critical need. The committee 

is encouraged by these efforts to use technologies from Plan X and 

Project IKE as a prototype to address these warfighting requirements. The committee believes that these prototyping efforts could 

be leveraged as a foundation for the JCC2 program. The committee 

therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 

2020, on the plans to leverage previous prototyping efforts in the 

JCC2 acquisition strategy. 

Briefings on the status of replacement progress of the mobile ground systems supporting the Space Based Infrared Satellite system 

The committee is concerned about challenges in fielding the mobile ground systems that support the Space Based Infrared Satellite System program as well as the Nuclear Detonation Detection 

System. These mobile ground systems are replacing mobile ground 

systems from the 1980s, which have become increasingly 

unsustainable and will soon be obsolete. Programmatic delays have 

undermined the ability of these mobile ground systems to meet requirements to deliver long-term, cost-effective, multi-role, and 

multi-mission space effects to the warfighter across the range of 

military operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to brief the congressional defense committees on the fielding of 

these mobile ground systems by March 1, 2020, with a follow-up 

briefing to be delivered by September 1, 2020. 

Comptroller General assessment of cyber infrastructure 

programs 

Over the last few years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

begun to invest in numerous cyber capabilities that will be integrated into the Joint Cyber Warfighting Architecture (JCWA). 

Major components of the JCWA include cyber tools and the Unified 

Platform, Joint Cyber Command and Control, and Persistent Cyber 

Training Environment programs. 

The committee supports the acquisition of cutting-edge cyberspace capabilities but is concerned that a systemic analytical approach is needed to ensure a sound and viable cyber infrastructure 

architecture. The DOD must be able to deliver new capabilities 

while meeting cost, schedule, and performance targets. Given the 

importance, long duration, cost, and span of requirements for the 

acquisition efforts pursuant to the JCWA, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to undertake a multiyear effort to monitor these programs, including mission, requirements, cost, scope, and schedule. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 

briefing on the preliminary findings of this effort to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2020, with a 

first year report to be submitted not later than December 31, 2020. 

323 

Since the committee expects that this will be a long-term effort, an 

out-year reporting schedule will also be agreed upon at the time of 

the delivery of the preliminary findings. 

The Comptroller General’s review should address: (1) The purpose, scope, and technical merits of the capabilities that fit within 

the JCWA construct; (2) Their integration with elements of the 

Cyber Mission Force, component-level cybersecurity capabilities, 

and the Department’s operational and targeting concepts; (3) The 

extent to which these capabilities are developed in a coordinated 

manner and are compatible with new and existing systems, networks, and capabilities; (4) How the DOD and the Services formulate requirements for JCWA programs, including how they obtain 

warfighter and operator input; and (5) The DOD’s acquisition strategies, including contracting and development approaches, for satisfying these requirements. 

Comptroller General report on readiness of the nuclear 

command, control, and communications system 

The committee understands that, while the Department of Defense is working to modernize the nuclear command, control, and 

communications (NC3) enterprise, the elements and systems that 

currently make up this enterprise must also be sustained and 

maintained. Examples of such elements and systems include the 

extremely high frequency MILSTAR and Advanced Extremely High 

Frequency satellite terminals, the Single Channel Anti-Jam ManPortable Extremely High Frequency Terminal, the Navy’s E–6B 

Mercury and Air Force’s E–4B National Airborne Operations Center aircraft, and very low frequency transmitter and receiver systems. While the Department routinely evaluates the performance of 

the overall NC3 system, the committee is concerned that the Department does not have an integrated picture of the operational 

availability of the individual components that make up the system. 

The committee is also unaware of any readiness reporting procedure to assess and track the health of these individual systems 

across the Department. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the readiness reporting procedures for the 

elements and systems that comprise the NC3 enterprise. The 

Comptroller General shall provide a briefing on the preliminary 

findings of this review to the congressional defense committees no 

later than March 1, 2020, with a final report to follow at a time 

agreed to at the briefing. 

Comptroller General study on weapon system cybersecurity 

The committee understands the importance of appropriate cybersecurity protections’ incorporation in future Department of Defense 

(DOD) major defense acquisition programs. The Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) directed the Department to 

evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of major weapons systems of the 

Department of the Defense. The committee has previously asked 

the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct assessments on the cybersecurity of major weapons systems. The Comptroller General found that these programs and associated weapon 

324 

systems are increasingly networked and dependent on software, information technology, and automation to achieve their intended 

performance, making them vulnerable to a variety of cybersecurity 

threats. At the same time, federal and contractor systems face a 

growing number of cyber-based threats, including advanced persistent threats. The Comptroller General also found that the DOD 

has not yet determined how to address weapon systems cybersecurity and had only recently begun requiring acquisition programs to 

define and track the cybersecurity measures that they would employ to protect their systems. 

The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General to continue its assessment of DOD efforts to improve the cybersecurity of 

its major defense acquisition programs and to brief the congressional defense committees annually on the results, with recurring 

reports whose scope and timing may be determined by the Comptroller General in consultation with the congressional defense committees. These briefings and reports may address a number of topics related to defense acquisitions and weapon system cybersecurity, including program security plans, requirements, weapon system design, DOD’s use of intelligence assessments to inform acquisition programs, control system architectures, contractor protection 

of government data and associated networks, related contracting 

issues, and testing. The Comptroller General should consult with 

the congressional defense committees to determine the specific topics area or areas covered by each assessment. 

Coordination of election cybersecurity efforts 

The committee recognizes that foreign adversaries have sought to 

use cyber operations, information operations, and other espionage 

activities against the United States to influence American elections 

and the democratic political processes. 

Section 1642 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) provides the National Command 

Authority with the authority to disrupt, defeat, and deter cyber attacks against the United States, including attempts to influence 

American elections and democratic political processes. Further, section 1650 of the same law authorizes the Department of Defense 

to assign technical personnel to the Department of Homeland Security to enhance cybersecurity cooperation and unity of efforts with 

respect to protection of critical infrastructure, including election infrastructure. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to ensure that 

it coordinates, consistent with applicable authorities and policies, 

with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 

Justice, and the National Security Agency to safeguard the resilience and integrity of American election processes and infrastructure. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

make further use of its authorities to provide technical assistance 

and information to the Department of Homeland Security and 

other Federal entities to secure election infrastructure and to support operational responses to any malicious activities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the appropriate Federal agencies, to brief the congressional 

defense committees on the coordination and the status of the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
325 

partment of Defense’s efforts to support interagency efforts to defend American election processes and infrastructure no later than 

September 30, 2020. The briefing shall also inform the committee 

of the Department of Defense’s assessment of scope and intensity 

of any foreign influence operations, cyber operations, and other malicious activities that pose a threat to the Federal elections to be 

held on November 3, 2020, and any recommendations on and plans 

for adjustments to authorities, legal frameworks, force posture, capabilities, and operational concepts necessary to defend against 

such operations and attacks. 

Cybersecurity of commercial clouds used by Department of 

Defense 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

adoption of commercial cloud-based products and services to store 

and process data. The committee understands the potential of commercial clouds to provide cost-effective, state-of-the-art capabilities 

but also understands the imperative to keep its high-impact, mission-critical data secure from our adversaries. To ensure the cybersecurity of commercial cloud products and services used by the Department, it is critical that the Department be able to conduct cybersecurity testing, including threat-realistic cyberattacks, to assess the cybersecurity of the Department’s data and the cyber defense response to the attacks. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

briefing, no later than February 1, 2020, to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

how the DOD is ensuring that independent cyber assessments, including threat-realistic attacks by independent DOD cyber red 

teams, are conducted for commercially-provided infrastructure (e.g., 

clouds) that involve storage of high-impact or classified data in 

order to assess the security of the data and defensive capabilities 

associated with the infrastructure. The briefing shall detail DOD’s 

efforts with respect to every instance of a commercial cloud in 

which the Department is storing, or plans to store, high-impact or 

classified DOD data. The committee further recommends that information on this testing be included in the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation annual report. 

Cybersecurity of industrial control systems 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its efforts to address the cybersecurity of installation industrial control 

systems (ICSs). The committee expects to be kept informed of the 

Department’s ongoing efforts in this regard. The committee is 

aware of a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD), 

called MOSAICS, involving Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Command, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, a national laboratory, and a University Affiliated Research Center. The demonstration is based on commercial technology and standards developed by the National Security 

Agency with industry and the Department of Homeland Security 

under an umbrella initiative called Integrated Adaptive Cyber Defense (IACD). IACD technologies include sensing and automated orchestration and interoperability among cybersecurity tools and sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
326 

tems to defend both operational technology (such as ICSs) and information technology. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief 

the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2020, on the 

status of these and related efforts to secure ICSs. This briefing 

shall include an assessment of the MOSAICS JCTD, the utility of 

additional pilot programs at one or more installations to test measures aimed at mitigating cybersecurity risk of installation ICSs, 

and plans for acquiring and operationally fielding advanced commercial cybersecurity solutions for ICS cybersecurity. 

Declassification of near-peer adversaries’ military capabilities 

The committee recognizes that the United States’ near-peer competitors—China and Russia—are rapidly advancing key military 

capabilities. Such capabilities include but are not limited to: (1) Advanced submarine technology; (2) Hypersonic missiles; (3) Fifthgeneration fighter aircraft; (4) Cyber and information operations 

capabilities; (5) Space and counterspace capabilities; (6) Clandestine intelligence activities and human source development; and (7) 

Those that advance destabilization activities worldwide, including 

in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Syria, the Horn of Africa, the South 

China Sea, Venezuela, and the Arctic, among other capabilities 

that threaten the United States’ strategic edge. Additionally, the 

committee recognizes that much of the U.S. intelligence regarding 

these military capabilities and threats is classified. As a consequence, Department of Defense officials are frequently unable to 

provide detailed testimony during public committee hearings about 

the erosion of the comparative military advantage of the United 

States, which constrains congressional oversight of crucial national 

security issues and prevents the American people from understanding the intelligence assessments that inform national security 

policy. 

The committee further recognizes that the Department of Defense is required to produce ‘‘military power’’ reports with respect 

to both China and Russia. Section 1260 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) requires annual classified and declassified reports on China’s military power, titled ‘‘Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.’’ Section 1245 of 

the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), as 

amended, requires an annual Russian military power report. 

The committee stresses that it is critically important that the Department of Defense strive for increased transparency with the 

Congress and the American people on critical issues of national security. Accordingly, the committee urges the Department, in the 

course of producing the annual reports pertaining to both China 

and Russia, to declassify and make available to the public, to the 

maximum extent possible consistent with United States national 

security, information on the development of key military capabilities and activities of China and Russia. 

327 

Department of Defense endpoint management program 

The committee understands the importance of robust endpoint 

cybersecurity, including the continuous monitoring of devices on 

the network. Section 1647 of the John S. McCain National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) required the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report evaluating 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) information security continuous monitoring programs. The committee is aware of the DOD 

Chief Information Officer’s (CIO) cybersecurity priorities, including 

a focus on network security and information-sharing. The committee is pleased with the aggressive implementation of the DOD 

CIO’s approach, including a robust endpoint management program 

that includes comply-to-connect and continuous monitoring. The 

committee urges the DOD to continue the rapid deployment of commercial technology capabilities within its endpoint management 

program to secure the DOD Information Network and that allows 

further standardization of capabilities across the Department. 

Foreign online influence operations 

Foreign influence operations on and across social media platforms pose a significant threat to the security and stability of the 

United States and its allies and partners. As Director of National 

Intelligence Dan Coats testified to the Senate Select Committee on 

Intelligence in January 2019, ‘‘U.S. adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use online influence operations to try 

to weaken our democratic institutions, undermine U.S. alliances 

and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in the United States 

and elsewhere.’’ He also warned that the intelligence community 

expects that ‘‘the threat landscape could look very different in 2020 

and future elections.’’ 

The Global Engagement Center (GEC), as established by section 

1287 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328), as amended by section 1284 of the 

John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2019 (Public Law 115–232), is authorized to direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state 

and foreign non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed 

at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of 

the United States and U.S. allies and partner nations. In carrying 

out this mission, the GEC may provide grants to nongovernmental 

organizations, federally funded research and development centers, 

and academic institutions, including for purposes of analyzing and 

reporting on tactics, techniques, and procedures of foreign information warfare and other efforts with respect to disinformation and 

propaganda. 

The committee continues to strongly support the mission of the 

GEC and reiterates the importance of integrating military and nonmilitary tools of statecraft to address this challenge. The committee 

believes that the GEC is well positioned to counter foreign influence operations, including through the support of efforts by U.S. 

nongovernmental organizations and other appropriate entities to 

analyze and report on foreign influence operations on social media 

328 

platforms aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States. 

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system enhancements 

In 2017, the President sought additional funding to expand the 

capacity of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system 

and deploy an additional 20 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) 

equipped with redesigned kill vehicles (RKVs) by 2023. In his 

March 2018 prepared statement submitted to the Senate Armed 

Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, the director of the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA), explained that ‘‘this increase to GBI capacity is a 

response by the National Command Authority to the rapidly advancing North Korean threat and has been designated as an ‘emergency requirement’ by the President in the FY18 President’s Budget Amendment.’’ However, in his 2019 statement, Lieutenant General Greaves stated, ‘‘I assessed the RKV program did not meet the 

entrance criteria for the Critical Design Review, resulting in a projected delay in the program of up to 2 years.’’ 

While the committee appreciates MDA’s commitment to rigorous 

testing and a ‘‘fly before you buy’’ approach, the committee is concerned about the GMD system’s ability to continue to pace growing 

ballistic missile threats to the United States without the 20 additional operational interceptors that would be available on the anticipated schedule. Accordingly, the committee directs the Missile 

Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees on options to improve the reliability, performance, and 

overall effectiveness of the GMD system. The briefing shall include 

an assessment of the cost, expected reliability benefits, feasibility, 

and advisability of upgrading configuration 1 boosters to configuration 2 and accelerating planned upgrades of the fielded ground systems components ahead of projected GMD Development and 

Sustainment Contract dates. 

Independent evaluation of Air Force space command and 

control enterprise program 

The committee is aware that the Air Force is developing a Space 

Command and Control (Space C2) program, which is a software-intensive effort borne out of the failure of the Joint Space Operations 

Center Mission System program (JMS). The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded in his fiscal year 2018 annual report that the JMS is not operationally effective for its Space 

Situational Awareness mission. The committee is concerned that 

the Air Force has now embarked on a larger effort to develop a 

space enterprise battle management communication and control 

platform, despite the failure of the JMS effort and potentially without incorporating the lessons learned. 

The committee has prior experience with software-intensive development efforts, such as the Air Force’s Global Positioning Systems Next Generation Operational Control program, which incurred a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Such experience indicates the 

need to critically examine the Space C2 program in its early stages 

to ensure that it proceeds on a sound programmatic footing. 

329 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition and Sustainment to enter into an agreement with 

a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to review the Air Force’s Space C2 program and develop a final report 

based on such evaluation. The committee directs the Under Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than February 1, 2020, the FFRDC’s final report. 

Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment system 

and multi-domain sensors 

The committee continues to be concerned about the health of the 

Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) system, which enables precise decision-making by senior leaders when 

responding to strategic threats to North America. The committee 

commends the Secretary of the Air Force for a well-thought-out series of steps to implement a plan to better manage the program, 

which was submitted to the committee on February 28, 2019. 

As the program is critical to the defense of North America, the 

committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with the commanders of U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Strategic Command, 

to brief the congressional defense committees on the progress of implementing this important plan by March 1, 2020, with a second 

briefing by September 1, 2020. 

Light Detection and Ranging capabilities 

The committee notes the importance of Light Detection and 

Ranging (LIDAR) capabilities in providing high-resolution digital 

mapping to support Department of Defense (DOD) planning and 

operations around the world. The committee is aware of commercial airborne mapping providers that collect and process unclassified aerial orthoimagery and LIDAR data in support of DOD and 

other federal departments and agencies of the U.S. government in 

permissive and non-conflict areas around the world and encourages 

the DOD to look for opportunities to utilize commercial solutions 

for its requirements, when appropriate. 

Low Power Laser Demonstrator program 

The committee continues to support the Missile Defense Agency’s 

Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) program and the development of a boost phase intercept (BPI) capability. Further, beyond 

BPI, a high altitude laser weapon system, like those under development in the LPLD program, could have multiple applications and 

capabilities and could be adapted to be an effective countermeasure 

against other threats, including cruise, surface-to-air, air-to-air, 

and hypersonic missiles. 

The committee believes that existing lasers under development 

could be scaled up further to the higher power and beam quality 

levels needed to prosecute targets yet continue to have the low size 

and weight requirements that are critical to fielded systems. The 

Congress has recognized the need for this technology and provided 

increased funding in fiscal year 2019 with the intent of continuing 

the development of three technologies with the potential for scaling 

such lasers to the high power levels required for BPI and defense 

against other advanced threats. 

330 

In carrying out the LPLD, the committee directs the Director of 

the Missile Defense Agency to continue to pursue the integration 

of such laser systems aboard airborne platforms, culminating in 

flight demonstrations as early as possible. Therefore, not later than 

December 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a report on the Department of Defense’s plans for 

the flight test program for the LPLD project, including: (1) The expected date that operational airborne tests of the LPLD will begin; 

(2) The expected required number of flight tests and expected cadence of flight tests that the LPLD project will require; and (3) A 

comprehensive description of the Department’s planned locations to 

conduct LPLD flights and tests, including a cost-benefit analysis 

for each location and an analysis of each location’s suitability for 

the flight platforms anticipated to participate in the project. 

National Security Agency Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence 

The committee is aware of the National Security Agency (NSA) 

National Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) in Cyber Defense 

and Cyber Operations, a joint NSA and Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) program to promote higher education and research 

in cyber defense and produce professionals with cyber defense expertise. The committee is encouraged by the university participation in this program and believes that this program is critical to 

developing a cyber workforce for the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The committee notes that these academic institutions have met 

designated criteria for selection and have constructed their programs around cyber technologies and techniques that are critical to 

intelligence, military, and law enforcement organizations. The committee believes that these NSA CAEs are a resource that should be 

more effectively engaged by the Department to provide missioncritical support to the DOD, including in cybersecurity research, 

cyber operational training, cyber strategies and best practices, supply chain and security economics, and cyber domain studies. The 

committee believes that the work of, as well as the workforce 

emerging from, these academic institutions should be more widely 

used to meet DOD needs. The committee believes that emphasis 

should be placed on institutions that have received all three NSA 

CAE designations: cyber defense education, cyber defense research, 

and cyber operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering and the Chief Information Officer to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2020, on the current and potential future utilization of the 

NSA CAE institutions as feeder schools, research partners, and key 

partners of the DOD cyber enterprise. The briefing shall include, 

at a minimum, an evaluation of additional ways that the DOD 

could employ the capabilities of NSA CAE institutions and recommendations for programs that could be established to further 

strengthen the partnership between the DOD and the NSA CAEs. 

331 

Nuclear Posture Review implementation 

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) states that the B83–1 

and B61–11 nuclear bombs will be retained in the stockpile, due to 

their ability to hold at risk a variety of protected targets, at least 

until suitable replacements are identified. The committee understands that, as part of its implementation of the NPR, the Department of Defense is conducting an assessment of hard and deeply 

buried targets and options to credibly hold those targets at risk 

consistent with deterrence requirements. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee 

on the results of this review not later than 60 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Pilot program authority to enhance cybersecurity and resiliency of critical infrastructure 

Section 1650 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) established a 

pilot authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide technical cyber personnel to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enhance 

cooperation, collaboration, and unity in government efforts to protect critical infrastructure. The committee believes that a robust 

partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 

DHS is critical to both organizations. The committee is pleased to 

learn of the use of this authority during the defense of the 2018 

midterm elections and encourages the Departments to continue use 

of this authority. The committee also encourages the Departments 

to expand the use of this authority to include DOD support to DHS 

for red-teaming and tabletop exercises, cybersecurity assessments 

of commercial critical infrastructure relevant to DOD installations, 

and other mutually beneficial activities. 

Reducing barriers to service in U.S. Space Force 

The committee acknowledges the absolute necessity of recruiting 

the Nation’s best talent in science, technology, engineering, and 

math to serve in the U.S. Space Force in order sustain a competitive advantage in the space domain. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to craft the personnel regulations of 

the U.S. Space Force with the intent to open accession into the 

U.S. Space Force to the widest possible pool of talent while meeting 

military standards by limiting, to the maximum extent possible, restrictions based on physiological conditions. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, on the medical and physical standards and requirements that 

will apply to members of the U.S. Space Force, the justification associated with each requirement, and a comparison to the current 

requirements that exist in the U.S. Air Force. This briefing should 

also include any recommended changes to statute that may inhibit 

efforts to make the broadest recruiting pool available to the U.S. 

Space Force. 

332 

Report on Mobile User Objective System 

The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) is the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) next-generation narrowband military satellite 

communications system designed to provide increased narrowband 

communications capacity and capability. The committee is concerned that synchronizing delivery of the MUOS space and ground 

segments with the Army’s compatible Handheld, Manpack, and 

Small Form Fit Radios remains a challenge. 

Consequently, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to review: (1) The challenges to enabling effective 

use of MUOS satellites and what the Department is doing to address them; (2) Planning efforts underway to determine a MUOS 

follow-on capability; and (3) What the Department is doing to avoid 

disconnects in fielding satellite and ground segments going forward. The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief its 

preliminary observations to the congressional defense committees 

no later than March 1, 2020, with a final report to follow on a mutually agreed upon date. 

Report on using existing intelligence sensors for ballistic 

missile defense 

The committee notes that ballistic missile threats are evolving in 

complexity and that the U.S. Strategic Command Commander has 

stated that our ability to see and characterize a missile threat is 

the most important aspect of a successful missile defense system 

for the U.S. homeland. The committee recognizes that, while there 

are challenges associated with developing, procuring, and deploying 

new sensors capable of meeting enhanced and evolving threats, the 

U.S. intelligence community has numerous ground- and sea-based 

sensor platforms currently performing measurement and signature 

intelligence (MASINT) collection that provide missile tracking data. 

The recent Missile Defense Review describes such ‘‘existing intelligence-gathering sensors with a demonstrated capability to track 

offensive missiles that could be incorporated into U.S. homeland 

and regional missile defense architectures.’’ It is the committee’s 

understanding that these are very capable sensors, providing key 

intelligence regarding missile development that is used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to design and acquire missile tracking 

and defense systems and performing multiple missions including 

MASINT, space surveillance, and missile defense. The committee 

encourages the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to collaborate and optimize existing U.S. MASINT sensors to 

improve our ability to see and characterize missile threats to enhance the defense of the U.S. homeland. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the MDA, in coordination with the intelligence community, to provide a report to 

the committee no later than December 1, 2019, detailing the ability 

to integrate current U.S. ground- and sea-based MASINT sensors 

into the U.S. homeland missile defense architecture. The report 

shall include the existing participation of U.S. intelligence sensor 

assets in the ballistic missile defense system, including intelligence 

support to defense system design and acquisition, as well as the 

operational impacts, costs, and timelines associated with activating 

a U.S. homeland missile defense mission for each sensor. 

333 

Security and resiliency of decision-making technologies 

The committee remains concerned that America’s adversaries 

continue to enhance their cyber capabilities with the intention of 

penetrating the Department of Defense’s (DOD) secure communications infrastructure. To counter this challenge, the committee encourages the DOD to ensure that critical decision-making technologies remain secure and resilient in the face of current and future cyber threats. 

When developing an acquisition strategy and analysis of alternatives for the construction of or upgrades to those command and 

control centers with combat, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance responsibilities, the committee directs DOD procurement 

and acquisition officers to consider mission effectiveness and operational suitability, including factors such as: (1) The security risk 

of components and devices responsible for the routing and dissemination of information and mitigation measures like the isolation of 

network communications and integrity of firmware or software; (2) 

The security risk of components and devices that are not sourced 

and manufactured domestically; and (3) Physical, logistical, or 

operational measures to mitigate insider threats. 

Social network analysis for counterterrorism 

Extremists and terrorist organizations are using internet-based 

tools like social media and digital communication as a means to 

spread propaganda and to target U.S. security interests around the 

world. The committee notes that universities, colleges, and other 

academic institutions perform important research on the use of 

these online tools by extremists and terrorist organizations and 

that such research may be beneficial to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) understanding of this rapidly evolving operating environment and DOD’s development of related strategies. As such, 

the committee encourages the DOD to continue its collaboration 

with these universities, colleges, and academic institutions on these 

efforts, as appropriate. 

Software defined networking and network and cybersecurity orchestration 

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 

115–232) that directed the Principal Cyber Adviser (PCA), the 

Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the Commander of U.S. Cyber 

Command (CYBERCOM) to designate a network on which to conduct a demonstration and evaluation of commercial technology to 

enable network nodes and security systems to communicate with 

one another and to be orchestrated to ingest, publish, subscribe, tip 

and cue, and request and direct information and actions from each 

other. 

The committee has since learned that the National Security 

Agency (NSA) has conducted a multi-year effort to define and enable Integrated Adaptive Cyber Defense (IACD) in cooperation with 

commercial industry, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, and the Department of Homeland Security. The 

IACD effort has been working to mature the very technology that 

the committee intended the Department of Defense to demonstrate: 

334 

commercial companies are offering cybersecurity orchestration tools 

and services for connecting together all cybersecurity systems, 

agents, applications, and appliances deployed on a network and 

synchronizing their actions with a high degree of automation and 

agility. These orchestration platforms also provide capabilities to 

rapidly create new workflows and event sequences. 

The committee is also aware of initiatives underway within the 

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to adopt and adapt 

commercial and open source tools and services for software-defined 

networking (SDN) for provisioning, access, configuration, and agile 

control of networks, data centers, and clouds. DISA SDN architects 

believe that cybersecurity orchestration should nest under and ultimately be connected to and be controlled by a ‘‘global orchestration’’ 

engine at the enterprise network level. 

The committee believes that these capabilities are critical and 

should be carefully evaluated for integration into command and 

control nodes like the Joint Cyber Command and Control platform, 

the cybersecurity service provider operations centers, and network 

operations centers. In addition, the Cyber Protection Teams should 

be able to connect into the orchestration control plane for orchestration of network sensors and agents. 

The committee directs the PCA, in coordination with the CIO, 

the Joint Staff J6, and the Commander of CYBERCOM, to: review 

the capabilities and offerings of the companies that the NSA has 

nurtured around cybersecurity orchestration technology; review the 

DISA-led SDN and network orchestration initiatives; and develop 

a plan, an architecture, and requirements for integrating these 

technologies and capabilities into the Department of Defense Information Network, the cloud strategy, and the operational cyber defense systems of the Department. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees on 

the status of this effort by February 15, 2020. 

Space Fence Site 2 

The committee recognizes the importance of delivering actionable 

battle management knowledge to warfighters as they defend space 

assets as well as the criticality of providing space situational 

awareness (SSA) data to enable safe space traffic management and 

to avoid future collisions that could render certain orbital regimes 

unusable. The importance of space assets to both national defense 

and the world economy, the development of multiple new mega-constellations, consisting of thousands of satellites, and the growing 

threats to space assets by China, Russia, and other nations demand more accurate and timelier battle management/SSA data. 

The Space Fence is the Department of Defense’s newest and most 

capable SSA system that can provide unparalleled capabilities, 

both in Low Earth Orbit where the new mega-constellations including the Space Sensor Layer are being built and satellites are most 

vulnerable, and in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit where satellites 

have persistent strategic advantages. 

The committee is aware that the Department’s Space Fence contract includes an option for a second Space Fence site and directs 

the Secretary of the Air Force to consider funding the option and 

beginning construction of Space Fence Site 2 in fiscal year 2021. 

335 

The system has a stable design with high technology and manufacturing readiness levels, and the cost estimate is considerably less 

than Space Fence Site 1 due to knowledge gained during construction of the first site. Space Fence Site 2 would increase resiliency 

of the Space Surveillance Network, improve accuracy, timeliness, 

and custody of low altitude objects, increase southern hemisphere 

coverage, and significantly enhance deep space coverage. The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report to the congressional 

defense committees, not later than February 28, 2020, on the decision as to whether to fund a second Space Fence site and the reasons for such a decision. 

Space industrial base of the People’s Republic of China 

The committee recognizes the critical importance of the emerging 

small satellite and small launch vehicle sectors to the future economic competitiveness and national security of the United States. 

However, the committee is concerned about the rapid growth of the 

Chinese commercial space sector that is supported by the Chinese 

government through technology assistance, state-backed venture 

investments (including investments in U.S. companies that ultimately lead to intellectual property leakage to the People’s Republic of China), state-backed industrial espionage, and major national 

initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative. 

The committee understands that in the last 4 years more than 

60 small commercial space companies have emerged in China. 

These companies are focused on leveraging the technology advancements of low-cost small satellites and launch vehicles to lead and 

dominate global markets. As a result, these companies have been 

able to enter the international marketplace with costs that are 3 

to 4 times less than comparable U.S. companies. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide, not later than March 15, 2020, a briefing on the current 

state of the small satellite and small launch industry in China, to 

include an assessment of the role of Chinese government support 

in the growth of these companies and a set of recommended steps 

and investments the Secretary should take to ensure that the Department of Defense has long-term access to world-leading small 

satellite and small launch technologies and capabilities from U.S. 

companies. 

Status of Military Ground User Equipment receivers 

The committee is concerned with the compatibility of Military 

Ground User Equipment (MGUE) with the Global Positioning System III enhanced Military Code (M–Code), including obsolescence 

issues in existing receivers and issues associated with a trusted 

microelectronics base. 

Therefore, the committee directs the co-chairs of the Council on 

Oversight of the Department of Defense Positioning, Navigation, 

and Timing Enterprise to submit a report, no later than February 

1, 2020, to the congressional defense committees, on the number 

and extent of the military systems that will require the MGUE receiver replacement compatible with the GPS III enhanced M–Code, 

the cost of replacement for these systems, and the timing of the replacement of these receivers with MGUE cards. 

336 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the report and provide an inventory and assessment of fielded systems that can either accept the new MGUE 

cards, allow reprogramming of the systems with new software to 

utilize GPS III M–Code, or require a full replacement with updated 

hardware. The evaluation must include a timeline of the expected 

usable lifespan of each system and a verdict as to whether the replacement has been assigned, programmed, and loaded in the procurement cycle for the affected equipment. The committee directs 

the Comptroller General to relay these findings in the form of a 

briefing to the congressional defense committees at a time mutually 

agreed upon by both parties. 

Tactically responsive space launch operations 

The committee recognizes the importance of integrating and synchronizing new commercial small launch services into the National 

Security Space Enterprise. The committee also supports the testing, training, and operationalization of these capabilities to provide 

options for on-orbit reconstitution within the space warfighting domain. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to develop a 

plan to leverage and analyze commercial space launch capabilities 

and to integrate these capabilities into Department of Defense 

(DOD) space operations. The Secretary shall provide a briefing to 

the congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 

2020, on such plan. The briefing shall address: 

(1) The establishment of responsive launch operational tactics, 

techniques, and procedures to improve the Air Force’s capability to 

rapidly reconstitute and improve resilience for defense satellite system launches; 

(2) The operational benefits that this effort will provide to the 

military departments and combatant commanders, to include the 

strategic benefit of performing tactically responsive space launch 

demonstrations at military installations in strategic geographic locations such as the Indo-Pacific region; 

(3) The amount of funding and other resources required by the 

DOD to employ a contingency capability for rapid reconstitution 

and tactically responsive space launch; and 

(4) Such other matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense transition and requirements 

The committee recognizes that the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) develops, tests, and fields systems to defend the United 

States and its forces, allies, and partners against enemy missiles. 

While the track record of previous transitions of such systems to 

the Services is poor, the committee believes that transitioning acquisition and sustainment from the MDA to the military departments is essential for successful operations, effective alignment of 

assets with requirements, and financial transparency. 

Section 1676 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 114–91), as amended, required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the plan to transition any 

337 

MDA missile defense system that has reached Milestone C approval or equivalent to the military departments. The committee 

notes that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program began the production and fielding phase in 2012 and, as 

such, is long overdue for transition to the Department of the Army. 

Per the requirements of section 1676, the Secretary’s plan for 

transitioning eligible systems was due to the congressional defense 

committees no later than December 12, 2018, but that report has 

not yet been submitted. 

The committee believes that the Army should be responsible for 

procuring and sustaining THAAD batteries and, as such, elsewhere 

in this Act all THAAD procurement and operation and maintenance funding is found in the budget of the Department of the 

Army. Research, development, test, and evaluation funds remain 

within the MDA’s budget in order to facilitate the MDA’s ongoing 

work on further system improvements and on the integration of 

THAAD into the rest of the missile defense architecture. 

Further, the committee notes that the existing validated THAAD 

requirement is nine batteries but only seven have been procured by 

the MDA and manned by the Army. The committee understands 

that this requirement may change due to a study tasked by the 

2019 Missile Defense Review. Because THAAD batteries are already some of the highest-demand, lowest-density assets in the 

Army and because the committee believes that these units are crucial for the defense of U.S. and allied forces, the committee believes 

that procurement should be promptly aligned to the requirement. 

The committee understands that it may be possible to synchronize U.S. procurement with foreign military sales in order to 

achieve economies of scale in production. The committee therefore 

expects that the Army will request procurement funds for an 

eighth battery in fiscal year 2021 and a ninth in fiscal year 2022. 

The committee also expects the Army to make the necessary investments in order to facilitate interceptor production at the level 

needed to meet requirements. Finally, the committee expects the 

Army to devote sufficient end strength in its future planning to 

fully meet the battery requirement. 

(339) 

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. It prohibits 

any future base realignment 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 2020 budget requested $11.2 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $9.7 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.3 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, $278.5 million for base 

closure activities, and $144.0 million for the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization Security Investment Program. 

The committee recommends the authorization of appropriations 

for military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities totaling $11.2 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continued commitment to investing 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 2020.’’ 

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, 2024, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2025, whichever is later. 

340 

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, 2019, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

(341) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.4 billion for military construction and $499.3 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2020. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.5 billion for military construction for the Army and $353.3 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2020. The committee notes that the reduction in authorization for family housing 

is intended to accurately reflect a transfer of funds to the other 

military departments for the funding of personnel at installation 

housing management offices. 

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 2020. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional $88.5 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 2020. 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 2020. 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. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2019 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public 

342 

Law 115–232) for the construction of a weapon maintenance shop 

at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, to include a 21,000 square foot 

weapon maintenance shop. 

(343) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.8 billion for military construction and $365.5 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2020. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.9 billion for military construction for the Navy and $446.5 million for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2020. 

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 2020. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional 

$607.1 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 2020. 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 $41.8 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 2020. 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. 

(345) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.2 billion for military construction and $398.6 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2020. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.3 billion for military construction for the Air Force and $463.6 

million for family housing for the Air Force for fiscal year 2020. 

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 2020. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional $391.5 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 2020. 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 

$53.6 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 2020. 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. 

346 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 project (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 

Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex Consolidation Phase 1, to 

change the location to Royal Air Force Molesworth, United Kingdom. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2016 project (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained 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 Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex Consolidation Phase 2 at an unspecified location in the United 

Kingdom, as modified by section 2305 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public Law 

115–232), to include for construction at Royal Air Force 

Molesworth, United Kingdom, a 5,152 square meter intelligence 

analytic center, a 5,234 square meter intelligence fusion center, 

and an 807 square meter battlefield information collection and exploitation system center. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2017 project (sec. 2307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained 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 Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex Consolidation Phase 3 at an unspecified location in the United 

Kingdom, as modified by section 2305 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public Law 

115–32), to include for construction at Royal Air Force Molesworth, 

United Kingdom, a 1,562 square meter regional joint intelligence 

training facility and a 4,495 square meter combatant command intelligence facility. 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 

projects (sec. 2308) 

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; 131 Stat. 1826) for the construction of a dining and classroom facility at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, to include a 750 

square meter equipment building, and for the construction of an air 

traffic control tower, to include a 636 square meter air traffic control tower. 

Additionally this provision would modify the authorization contained in section 2903 of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–91; 131 

Stat. 1876) for repairing and expanding a quick reaction alert pad 

at Rygge, Norway, to include the construction of 1,327 square meVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
347 

ters of aircraft shelter and a 404 square meter fire protection building. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2019 projects (sec. 2309) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public 

Law 115–232) for the construction of a semiconductor or microelectronics lab facility at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, to 

include a 1,000 kilowatt stand-by generator. 

This provision would also modify the authorization contained in 

section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public Law 115–232) for the construction of an F–35 dormitory at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, 

United Kingdom, to include a 5,900 square meter dormitory. 

(349) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $2.5 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies for 

fiscal year 2020. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.5 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies for 

fiscal year 2020. 

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 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment 

Program projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. The 

authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation 

basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the Defense Agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2020. 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. 

(351) 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $686.2 million for military construction in fiscal year 2020 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program and in-kind contributions from the Republic of 

Korea. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

for 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 $144.0 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program 

(NSIP) for fiscal year 2020. 

This provision would also allow the Department of Defense construction agent to recognize the NATO project authorization 

amounts as budgetary resources to incur obligations when the 

United States is designated as the host nation for the purposes of 

executing a project under NSIP. 

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 $542.2 million from the Republic of Korea as in-kind contributions. 

(353) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $552.4 million for military construction in fiscal year 2020 

for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$483.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2020 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. 

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 2020. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded 

military construction requirements and has included an additional 

$50.0 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 

2020. 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 2020. 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 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

354 

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 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2020 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. 

(355) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $278.5 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 

$278.5 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 2020 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 base realignment and closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 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 2020, the Department continues to focus its efforts 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. 

(357) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program 

Military installation resilience plans and projects of Department of Defense (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter I of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

the Secretaries of the military departments to develop and implement military installation resilience plans for installations in coastal areas. 

Prohibition on use of funds to reduce air base resiliency or 

demolish protected aircraft shelters in the European 

theater without creating a similar protection from attack (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 

available for the Department of Defense to be obligated or expended to implement any activity that reduces air base resiliency 

or demolishes protected aircraft shelters in the European theater 

without creating similar protection from attack until such time as 

the Secretary of Defense certifies that protected aircraft shelters 

are not required in the European theater. 

Prohibition on use of funds to close or return to the host nation any existing air base (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 

available for the Department of Defense to be obligated or expended to implement any activity that closes or returns to host nations any existing airbases until such time as the Secretary of Defense certifies that there is no longer a need for a rotational military presence in the European theater. 

Increased authority for certain unspecified minor military 

construction projects (sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the secretary of the military department concerned to carry out unspecified minor military construction projects, not to exceed $12.0 million with an area cost factor of $19.0 million, at the following installations: (1) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida; (2) Camp Ashland, 

Nebraska; (3) Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; (4) Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina; and (5) Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 

North Carolina. 

358 

The committee notes that the provision includes a termination 

clause of 5 years after enactment of this Act. 

Technical corrections and improvements to installation resilience (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 210 of title 23, United States Code, to improve the construction and reconstruction of defense access roads subject to weather 

conditions. Additionally, this provision would update the United 

Facilities Criteria to ensure that the Department of Defense accounts for weather and population projections during the construction projects. 

Subtitle B—Land Conveyances 

Release of interests retained in Camp Joseph T. Robinson, 

Arkansas, for use of such land as a veterans cemetery 

(sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to release the terms and conditions and reversionary interests retained on approximately 141.5 acres previously 

owned by the United States government. The committee notes that 

the provision would require that the transferred land be used for 

the sole purpose of expanding the Arkansas State Veterans Cemetery. 

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain parcels 

of Federal land in Arlington, Virginia (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, that would require the Secretary of the Interior to transfer a specified 16.09 acres parcel to the Secretary of the 

Army and for the Secretary of the Army to transfer a specified 1.04 

acre parcel to the Secretary of the Interior. The provision would not 

require any form of payment or consideration from either party. 

The provision would require that the 16.09 acre parcel transferred 

to the Army be managed as part of Arlington National Cemetery 

(ANC). 

The committee notes that this provision would simplify Federal 

land jurisdictions, enabling more effective safety, force protection, 

and vehicular and pedestrian flow into and out of ANC by moving 

control of the primary entrance to ANC—known as Memorial Avenue—from the Department of the Interior to the Army. 

Modification of requirements relating to land acquisition in 

Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2829A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to require the Secretary of the 

Army to expend amounts up to fair market value for cemetery expansion and include an in-kind consideration clause. 

White Sands Missile Range Land Enhancements (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

White Sands National Park and abolish White Sands National 

359 

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. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Equal treatment of insured depository institutions and credit unions operating on military installations (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that policies governing depository 

institutions and credit unions operating on military installations 

are equally applied to all relevant institutions. Additionally, the 

provision would prohibit any requirement for Secretaries of the 

military departments to provide no-cost office space or no-cost land 

lease to any insured depository institution or insured credit union. 

As servicemember financial practices evolve to reflect the growing prevalence of online banking, it makes little sense for the DOD 

to mandate that the Services provide a subsidy in the form of free 

rent, utilities, or other logistical support to any particular financial 

institution. Rather, the Department should ensure that any decision to provide rent concessions to on-base private businesses is 

justified on the basis of a coherent cost-benefit analysis. 

The committee also believes that no particular group of financial 

institutions should be advantaged or disadvantaged by DOD policy 

on the basis of its business structure and tax status. Therefore, this 

provision would require the DOD to develop policy treating all financial institutions equally when determining whether to provide 

a subsidy in exchange for an on-base location. 

Expansion of temporary authority for acceptance and use of 

contributions for certain construction, maintenance, 

and repair projects mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait military forces (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2804 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016, Division B of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), to include the Government of the Republic of Korea. 

Designation of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base 

(sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate the 

Sumpter Smith Air National Guard Base in Birmingham, Alabama, 

as the ‘‘Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base.’’ 

360 

Prohibition on use of funds to privatize temporary lodging 

on installations of Department of Defense (sec. 2824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

authorization of funds to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 

2020 to privatize temporary lodging on military installations. 

Pilot program to extend service life of roads and runways 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the military 

departments (sec. 2825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretaries of the military departments to carry out a pilot program to design, build, and test technologies in order to extend the 

service life of roads and runways under their jurisdiction. Further, 

this provision would require that, not later than 2 years after the 

commencement of the pilot program, the Secretaries of the military 

departments submit a report on the program to the congressional 

defense committees. 

Items of Special Interest 

Briefing on laboratory military construction 

The committee understands the importance of cutting-edge infrastructure for the Department of Defense (DOD) research and development facilities. The committee notes that section 2806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 

115–91) directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, to submit a report listing unfunded requirements on major and minor military construction projects for the 

DOD science and technology laboratories and test and evaluation 

facilities. The committee also authorized the laboratories to use research and development funds for large laboratory facility construction projects in section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee remains concerned that laboratory infrastructure continues to be underfunded and fails to match investments being made in similar facilities by near peer adversaries. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, to provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees on the unfunded requirements for laboratory military construction projects by February 1, 

2020. The briefing should include: (1) The impacts of the unfunded 

laboratory military construction projects on the research activities 

of the laboratories; (2) An analysis of laboratory-unique military 

construction costs in comparison to traditional military construction costs; and (3) Recommendations for addressing the impacts of 

these unfunded requirements. 

Comptroller General review of privatized lodging program 

The committee notes the importance of ensuring that the Department of Defense’s financial resources are being efficiently spent on 

all facets of housing and lodging. The committee notes that, in 

2009, the Army began the Privatized Army Lodging (PAL) program 

361 

to save on revitalization costs, shorten lengthy lead times, and provide rooms at potentially 75 percent of lodging per diem, which was 

estimated to save over $80.0 million annually. However, the committee notes that, according to recent reports, including one by the 

Government Accountability Office, there are concerns that PAL facilities may have higher lodging costs. The committee believes the 

Services should always be looking to provide better services at a reduced cost, while also reducing their non-core functions, but that 

the provision of better service should not be undertaken without 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to provide a briefing on preliminary findings to 

the congressional defense committees no later than February 15, 

2020, with a report to follow, on the following: (1) How have the 

costs of staying in Army lodging been affected by privatization, and 

how do these costs compare with those at non-privatized Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force lodging?; (2) What costs or savings has 

the Army realized since privatizing its lodging, and how do the 

costs compare with the costs to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force for operating lodging, to include per diem expenses?; (3) 

What improvements have been made to the Army’s lodging facilities since privatization; (4) Have the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force assessed privatizing their lodging and what have the relevant cost benefit analyses, if any, shown?; (5) What lessons 

learned from the Army’s PAL program have been shared with the 

other services?; and (6) Any other matters the Comptroller General 

determines relevant. 

Defense Access Roads 

The committee is supportive of Defense Access Roads (DAR) as 

a vital mechanism in providing transportation infrastructure to domestic installations and is supportive of additional funding from 

the Department of Defense (DOD) for mission-critical, off-base 

transportation improvements. The committee notes, for the first 

time in fiscal year 2019, the expansion of DAR, available to pay the 

cost of repairing and mitigating damage to infrastructure and highways by recurrent flooding if the Secretary determines that continued access to military installations is impacted by both storm and 

non-storm surge flooding. 

With this in mind, the February 2019 ‘‘Report to Congress on Defense Access Roads’’ stated that, of the 10 projects the DOD manages, there ‘‘are not any flood-prone locations creating a national 

security risk to transportation access for military installations.’’ 

Additionally, the report stated that the DOD ‘‘has the necessary 

means to address any flooding issues or risks (storm or non-storm 

surge) that may impact DOD missions if the roads meet the criteria to be certified as DAR but at this point no specific problems 

are known to exist.’’ As DAR certification only extends to public 

roads that meet certain criteria and State and local highway authorities are responsible for the connecting roads and highways, 

the committee encourages the Department to work with both local 

communities and State governments to determine if any existing 

public roads are hampering military readiness. 

362 

Department of Defense disaster recovery 

The committee is concerned about the impact of recent natural 

disasters on several of the Nation’s key military installations. 

Flooding damage at Offutt Air Force Base and the Nebraska National Guard’s Camp Ashland has put at risk essential missions, 

training, and tasking for highly valuable elements of Air Force’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enterprise as well as 

highly critical components of the Army National Guard’s training 

regimen. Hurricane impacts to Tyndall Air Force Base, Marine 

Corps Base Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry 

Point have threatened air dominance and amphibious assault 

training, affecting operational readiness at a time when the Services can little afford to lose this capability. Significant portions of 

Offutt Air Force Base, Camp Ashland, Camp Lejeune, and Marine 

Corps Air Station Cherry Point were impacted, while 95 percent of 

the buildings at Tyndall Air Force Base were damaged or destroyed. 

The devastation at these facilities presents a serious challenge to 

the Department of Defense’s installation management enterprise, 

and the committee believes that rebuilding these locations must be 

a priority for the Department and for the Congress. 

The committee is committed to ensuring that the United States 

Strategic Command, the 55th Wing, and the Nebraska National 

Guard receive the necessary funding to return Offutt Air Force 

Base and Camp Ashland to full mission capability. Further, the 

committee remains unified in its belief that Tyndall Air Force 

Base, Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point 

are vital to the Department’s efforts to protect the Nation and realize the goals of the National Defense Strategy. Taken as a whole, 

the facilities, assets, and personnel at these bases are an essential 

element of the Department of Defense’s ability to provide mission 

essential forces in support of national security objectives and remain critical to supporting the operational needs of combatant commanders. 

As such, the committee believes that full restoration of Offutt Air 

Force Base, Camp Ashland, Tyndall Air Force Base, Camp Lejeune, 

and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point are in the vital national security interest of the United States and supports efforts by 

the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Army National Guard to limit 

operational impact and restore those installations to meet and exceed their prior operational capacity. 

Excess storage capacity at Army National Guard installations 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD) facilities are able to maintain unique secure storage capabilities as 

well as have excess storage capacity that could also be used for 

public-private partnership opportunities. For example, the committee understands that Camp Navajo, Arizona, has significant excess capacity that could enable public-private partnerships to offer 

additional revenue to Camp Navajo, the Arizona National Guard, 

and the surrounding community. The committee recognizes the 

value that public-private partnerships between the DOD and appropriate non-profit or commercial entities would bring to the inVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
363 

stallation and encourages the Army to consider expanding these 

partnerships. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, no later 

than November 1, 2019, outlining specific National Guard installations that have requested to use excess storage capacity for publicprivate partnerships. The briefing should include general considerations that could impact any public-private storage agreements 

with non-DOD entities. Additionally, the briefing should include 

any land conveyances that may be required for any installations on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Firearms training infrastructure 

The committee remains concerned that a lack of emphasis on 

firearms training infrastructure in planning of military construction initiatives is placing an undue burden on military units and 

that the resulting time and resource inefficiency is detrimental to 

mission readiness. The committee urges the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to consider the total time and resource expenditures incurred and impact to mission readiness caused by inadequate 

training infrastructure when prioritizing military construction 

projects. Where appropriate, the committee encourages the DOD to 

seek out additional opportunities to partner with state and local 

entities. 

Long-term modernization of Lincoln Laboratory 

The committee recognizes the critical role that Lincoln Laboratory plays in conducting research and developing technologies that 

address critical national security challenges. In an effort to address 

the aging infrastructure that supports Lincoln Laboratory, the Air 

Force has two military construction projects to support the Lincoln 

Laboratory West Laboratory. The first military construction project 

was authorized by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) and the second project is currently programmed for fiscal year 2022. In addition, the committee is aware of a long-term modernization plan 

under development for Lincoln Laboratory that could amount to 

more than $1.5 billion in infrastructure investments over a 30-year 

period. 

However, the committee is aware that the military construction 

program may not be able to support such a large investment due 

to competing Air Force infrastructure priorities. The committee is 

also aware that many other federal agencies, inside and outside the 

Department of Defense, make use of the Air Force contract with 

Lincoln Laboratory. In addition, other statutory authorities, such 

as section 2353 of title 10, United States Code, may not currently 

allow for infrastructure investments due to circumstances specific 

to Lincoln Laboratory. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

not later than November 1, 2019, to provide a briefing to the committee on funding and authorities under consideration to support 

the long-term modernization plan for Lincoln Laboratory. The 

briefing should include a discussion on legislative proposals under 

consideration that could provide a viable path to support the longVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
364 

term modernization plan, including the benefits of and equities related to all Lincoln Laboratory contract users paying a fair share 

of facility sustainment, recapitalization, and construction costs. 

Report on Base Realignment Closure costs 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s budget re- quest for fiscal year 2020 included $278.5 million for the ongoing 

cost of environmental remediation and other activities related to 

implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee is concerned 

that, while BRAC is requested and presented by the Department 

as a consolidation that creates efficiency and savings, the Department is still facing annual BRAC costs for the 5 previous closure 

rounds, dating back almost 30 years. The committee is interested 

in understanding the fully burdened costs, to include the annual 

continuing costs associated with each BRAC round, the actual savings realized, and how the initial cost estimates align with actual 

costs incurred. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

deliver a report to the congressional defense committees, no later 

than November 1, 2019, on the estimates for both savings and costs 

as compared with the actual costs incurred and savings realized for 

each BRAC round since 1988. The report should include but not be 

limited to: (1) A timeline for each BRAC round, from approval 

through final spending for each round; (2) The estimated costs, in 

current-year dollars, reported to the Congress when each specific 

BRAC round was requested and approved; (3) The actual total 

costs, to date, for each BRAC round, separating out military construction and environmental remediation costs; (4) The actual savings, to date, realized for each BRAC round; (5) The current estimated final costs for each BRAC round, including environmental 

remediation costs, and identifying differences, if any, from the 

original estimate at time of approval; (6) The annual remaining recurring costs associated with each BRAC round, including, but not 

limited to, environmental remediation costs, broken down by location; (7) An estimate of when the Department will have fully completed the environmental remediation for each BRAC round and no 

longer requires continued funding; and (8) An assessment, with 

recommendations as warranted, of whether savings could be realized by paying down continuing BRAC costs at a faster pace than 

currently planned. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to conduct a review of the Department’s study 

to assess the report’s methodologies and findings. The Comptroller 

General of the United States shall also review the Department’s 

previous reports on BRAC costs and estimated cost savings versus 

realized cost savings and assess the validity of the Department’s 

cost estimating process for BRAC-associated activities. 

Report on condition of facilities at Senior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps units at minority-serving institutions 

The committee recognizes the importance of Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs to developing our military’s 

future leaders. Given the challenge that many colleges face in proVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00398 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
365 

viding and maintaining facilities for ROTC programs in the current 

environment of state budget cuts to higher education, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the current condition of facilities used by units of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

at minority-serving institutions. The report shall include the following: (1) A comprehensive description of the current condition of 

facilities used by such units; and (2) An assessment as to whether 

the condition of such facilities has an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of participants in such units. The term 

‘‘minority-serving institution’’ means a minority-serving institution 

for purposes of section 371 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(Public Law 89–329; 20 U.S.C. 1067q). 

(367) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included $303.4 million for military construction in fiscal year 2020 for overseas contingency operations. 

The committee recommends $2.9 billion for military construction 

in fiscal year 2020 for overseas contingency operations. The committee notes this includes $2.6 billion in disaster recovery funding. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Army military construction projects for fiscal year 2020 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 2020 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 2020 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 2020 for 

overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed 

on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Disaster recovery projects (sec. 2905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

specific amounts of disaster recovery funding for specific Marine 

Corps, Air Force, Army National Guard, and Defense-wide construction projects. The provision would direct specific amounts for 

Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, and MTA 

Fort Fisher in North Carolina as well as Tyndall Air Force Base 

and Panama City National Guard in Florida. 

368 

The committee notes that additional funds for planning and design are allocated for disaster relief in Florida, Nebraska, and 

North Carolina. 

Replenishment of certain military construction funds (sec. 

2906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $3.6 billion in military construction, overseas contingency operations, for the purposes of replenishing funds for previously authorized military construction projects that were repurposed under section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, from the national emergency declared on the southern border under the National Emergencies Act (Public Law 94–412). Under this provision: these transfers are exempt from General Transfer Authority; the transfer 

amounts may not exceed what was originally expended under section 2808 authority for each project; the aggregate amount after 

the transfer for any given project cannot exceed the original authorization for appropriation amount; and funds can only be transferred until September 31, 2020. 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2907) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction in the overseas contingency 

operations account for fiscal year 2020. 

(369) 

TITLE XXX—MILITARY HOUSING 

PRIVATIZATION REFORM 

Definitions (sec. 3001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide definitions for specific terms for this title. 

Subtitle A—Accountability and Oversight 

Tenant bill of rights for privatized military housing (sec. 

3011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries 

of the military departments, to develop a document to be known as 

the ‘‘Tenant Bill of Rights,’’ which would include but not be limited 

to minimum rights, such as homes that meet minimum health and 

environmental standards, the ability to report inadequate living 

standards to the military chain of command without fear of reprisal, and the ability to enter into a dispute resolution process for 

purposes of recouping basic allowance for housing. The provision 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit the current 

Tenant Bill of Rights on a biennial basis in conjunction with the 

annual budget submission. Finally, the provision would require the 

secretary of each military department to deliver an implementation 

plan for this provision to the congressional defense committees not 

later than February 1, 2020. 

The committee believes that this ‘‘Tenant Bill of Rights’’ should 

act as a framework for both the rights and responsibilities of any 

tenant living in housing managed by a Military Housing Privatization Initiative contractor. While certain rights included may require difficult contract renegotiation, the committee notes the willingness of many of the private contractors to ensure that tenants 

are better taken care of. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to work with military family advocacy groups in 

developing this document to ensure that it captures the overarching concerns of thousands of military families who have lived 

in substandard living conditions for years. Finally, the committee 

notes that this document may not be all-inclusive and that it is the 

responsibility of the military chain of command to ensure the 

health, safety, and welfare of its servicemembers. 

Designation of Chief Housing Officer for privatized military 

housing (sec. 3012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, requiring 

the Secretary of Defense to designate a Chief Housing Officer, who 

370 

shall be a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed Department of Defense official. The provision would require the Chief 

Housing Officer to establish and maintain the Office of the Chief 

Housing Officer, whose purpose would be to conduct oversight of 

the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) by standardizing policies and conducting audits of contracts, agreements, and 

work order incentive fees. The committee notes that this provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an implementation report to the congressional defense committees not later than 

60 days after enactment of this Act. 

The committee is concerned that the confirmed MHPI crisis has 

created immediate needs for military families but also requires 

long-term and consistent oversight for the viability of the program. 

The committee believes that the military departments must work 

together to address family concerns but that, moving forward, there 

must be a Department-wide effort to find the best solutions in 

order to improve the quality of life for military families who utilize 

on-base housing. The committee notes that, as the Department focuses on improving servicemember lethality, military family readiness must remain a priority so that servicemembers can remain 

mission-focused. 

Command oversight of military privatized housing as element of performance evaluations (sec. 3013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

secretary of a military department to ensure that performance 

evaluations indicate the extent to which the following individuals 

have or have not exercised effective oversight and leadership of 

military privatized housing: (1) Commanders of military installations with privatized military housing; (2) Each officer or senior enlisted member whose duties include facilities or housing management at such installations; and (3) Any other officer or enlisted 

member as specified by the secretary concerned. 

Consideration of history of landlord in contract renewal 

process for privatized military housing (sec. 3014) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to consider a private contractor’s past 

performance when deciding whether or not to enter into a new contract or renew an existing contract with that contractor. 

Treatment of breach of contract for privatized military 

housing (sec. 3015) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to withhold any amount owed under 

the contract as well as to rescind the contract if a material breach 

is found and not remedied within 90 days. 

371 

Uniform code of basic standards for privatized military 

housing and plan to conduct inspections and assessments (sec. 3016) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform code of basic housing 

standards for safety, comfort, and habitability for privatized military housing. The provision would also require the Secretary to 

submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 1, 2020, this uniform code and a plan for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to contract with home inspectors to conduct inspections and assessments of habitability and structural integrity of 

each housing unit as specified under subchapter IV of chapter 169 

of title 10, United States Code. Finally, the provision would require 

that said inspections be completed no later than February 1, 2021. 

The committee notes that, at the end of the 50-year agreements, 

housing units currently managed by military housing privatization 

contractors will be returned to the DOD. The committee believes 

that the totality of the condition of housing under the Military 

Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) is unknown. The committee notes that, during its investigation of the MHPI program, 

both individual homes and entire neighborhoods were neglected as 

it relates to required preventative and curative maintenance. The 

committee is concerned that, if measures are not taken to ensure 

the long-term viability of the current inventory, the DOD may receive its housing inventory back in less than ideal conditions, leading to higher maintenance costs in the future. 

Repeal of supplemental payments to lessors and requirement for use of funds in connection with the Military 

Housing Privatization Initiative (sec. 3017) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 606 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232), by repealing the requirement that the Secretary of Defense pay an additional 5 percent of the calculated Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for residents of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects 

to MHPI projects. The provision would require the Secretaries of 

the military departments to provide additional payments to MHPI 

projects equivalent to 2 percent of the calculated BAH for residents 

of MHPI projects. The Secretaries of the military departments 

would be required to use 3 percent of the calculated BAH for MHPI 

residents to make improvements to the oversight and management 

of MHPI projects. 

Under this provision, funding allocated to MHPI oversight could 

be used for additional civilian personnel, technological systems, or 

other items that would improve the military’s ability to manage 

and effectively supervise the various MHPI developments. The provision would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to 

provide additional funding the MHPI projects following notification 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives. 

372 

Standard for common credentials for health and environmental inspectors of privatized military housing (sec. 

3018) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on a standard for common credentials to be used 

throughout the Department of Defense for purposes of health and 

environmental hazard inspection to include, at a minimum, categories for lead, mold, and radon. 

Improvement of privatized military housing (sec. 3019) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to establish a database that makes available to the public 

complaints from tenants related to privatized military housing 

units, together with the landlord’s response to each such complaint. 

The provision also would require that, on no less than an annual 

basis, the Secretary of Defense publish in the Federal Register the 

financial details of each contract for the management of military 

privatized housing units. 

Further, the provision would require each relevant landlord to 

submit to the Secretary of Defense, on no less than an annual 

basis, a financial statement equivalent to the Form 10–K for the 

landlord and for each contract between the landlord and the DOD. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to the congressional defense committees, and to publish on 

a publicly available website of the DOD, not less than annually, a 

report on privatized military housing units, disaggregated by military installation. In addition, the commander of each military installation would be required to submit to the congressional defense 

committees, not less than annually, a report on all requests made 

by members of the Armed Forces, who are tenants of privatized 

military housing units, to withhold from their landlords any basic 

allowance for housing payable to the member that were denied during the period covered by the report. 

Access to maintenance work order system of landlords of 

privatized military housing (sec. 3020) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring each private contractor that provides housing under this subchapter to provide the housing management office at each installation access to their maintenance work order system. 

The committee notes that, during its investigation of the Military 

Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), it found that different 

services and installations had different levels of access to the maintenance work order system maintained by private contractors. The 

committee believes that, to conduct adequate oversight of the 

MHPI program, the housing management office, and thereby the 

military chain of command, must have an accurate assessment of 

outstanding work orders for its installation. 

373 

Access by tenants of privatized military housing to work 

order system of landlord (sec. 3021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

each landlord for a privatized military housing unit have an electronic work order system and provide tenants with access to such 

system. 

Subtitle B—Prioritizing Families 

Dispute resolution process for landlord-tenant disputes regarding privatized military housing and requests to 

withhold payments (sec. 3031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

the Secretary of Defense to implement a formal dispute resolution 

process on each military installation with privatized military housing units. This process would ensure prompt and fair resolution of 

landlord-tenant disputes concerning maintenance and repairs, 

damage claims, rental payments, move-out charges, and any other 

housing unit issues that the Secretary deems appropriate. This provision would require landlords to establish a process whereby tenants could submit a dispute electronically or in another form. Additionally, the provision would establish the commander of a military 

installation with privatized military housing as the designee who 

makes the final decision on any appeal with a requirement that he 

or she seek recommendations, at a minimum, from the: (1) Servicemember or family member filing the dispute; (2) Landlord named 

in the dispute; (3) Chief of the installation housing management office; (4) Judge advocate of the military department concerned; and 

(5) Base civil engineer. The provision would require decisions to be 

rendered at least on a monthly basis and decisions of the installation commander would be final. 

Moreover, this provision would authorize a member of the Armed 

Forces or a family member who is a tenant of a privatized military 

housing unit to submit a claim, to the commander, requesting the 

withholding of any basic allowance for housing payable to the 

member for the lease of a unit during a period in which: (1) The 

landlord has not met maintenance guidelines and procedures established by the landlord or the Department of Defense; or (2) The 

housing unit is uninhabitable according to State and local law for 

the jurisdiction in which the unit is located. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

develop and brief the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 1, 2020, on a department-wide policy for any funds 

withheld under section 2891a of this provision. 

Suspension of Resident Energy Conservation Program (sec. 

3032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would suspend the 

Department of Defense’s Resident Energy Conservation Program 

(RECP) until the Secretary of Defense can certify that 100 percent 

of military housing on installations is individually metered and certified by an independent entity through an energy audit. Furthermore, the provision would terminate the RECP if the Secretary of 

374 

Defense is unable to certify the individual usage 2 years after enactment of this Act. 

The committee notes that, while the RECP initiative was established with good intentions, servicemembers are, in some cases, 

paying higher energy costs than their actual usage merits. The 

committee understands that many installations were never designed or wired for individual usage and believes that these excessive charges, in many places, are erroneous. 

Access by tenants to historical maintenance information for 

privatized military housing (sec. 3033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring each private contractor that provides housing under this subchapter to provide prospective tenants with information regarding 

maintenance conducted at prospective housing units for the previous 10 years. 

Prohibition on use of call centers outside the United States 

for maintenance calls by tenants of privatized military 

housing (sec. 3034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by adding 

a section prohibiting any private contractor who is responsible for 

military housing from using a maintenance work order call center 

outside the United States. The provision would be effective 1 year 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Radon testing for privatized military housing (sec. 3035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than March 1, 

2020, to the congressional defense committees that identifies all 

Department of Defense installations that should be monitored for 

levels of radon in excess to that in the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s recommendations. The provision would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish testing procedures for all 

privatized military housing at installations that have been identified as requiring radon monitoring and would include a requirement to complete initial testing for all privatized military housing 

by June 1, 2020. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to certify on an annual basis that radon testing is being 

conducted for privatized military housing. 

Expansion of windows covered by requirement to use window fall prevention devices in privatized military housing (sec. 3036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2879(c) of title 10, United States Code, by striking ‘‘24 inches’’ 

and inserting ‘‘42 inches’’. 

Requirements relating to move out and maintenance with 

respect to privatized military housing (sec. 3037) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the 

375 

military departments, to develop a uniform move-out checklist for 

tenants of privatized military housing. This provision would also 

require that all maintenance issues and work orders related to 

health and safety issues at privatized military housing be reported 

to the commander of the installation at which the housing is located. 

Subtitle C—Long-Term Quality Assurance 

Development of standardized documentation, templates, 

and forms for privatized military housing (sec. 3041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretary of each 

military department, to develop standard documentation, templates, and forms for privatized military housing. The provision 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance within 30 days of the enactment of this Act and to deliver an implementation plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 

February 1, 2020. 

The committee notes that a growing concern among family members is differing leases, processes, and protocols across installations. The committee believes that streamlining and consolidating, 

where possible, will allow the Department of Defense to have a better understanding of the privatized housing program. The committee also believes that this will assist the military departments’, 

specifically the chain of command’s, oversight of the program. 

Council on privatized military housing (sec. 3042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment of 

each military department to establish a military housing council to 

identify and resolve problems with military housing managed by 

private contractors. The provision would require each council to 

comprise not fewer than 2 civil engineers, 2 chiefs of a housing 

management office, and 2 installation commanders, who would 

each serve 2-year terms. Finally, the provision would require the 

councils to submit to the Secretary of Defense reports on their findings for the previous term, not later than October 1 of each year, 

with the first reports due no later than 60 days after the councils’ 

first meetings. 

The committee notes that, until the recent hearings of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, the military departments were unaware of the abhorrent conditions that many of its servicemembers 

were living in with little to no support from the military chain of 

command. The committee believes that councils, such as the one 

that this provision would require, would help leaders at the highest 

levels stay in touch with the ground truth of military housing conditions and better support servicemembers and their families. 

Requirements relating to management of privatized military 

housing (sec. 3043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to ensure that operating agreements 

376 

for any Department of Defense installation where on-base housing 

is managed by a private contractor include certain requirements. 

The provision would require the installation commander to conduct an annual review of the mold mitigation and pest control plan 

for the on-base contractor and allow the use of assigned bio-environmental or contractor equivalent personnel to test for mold, unsafe water, and other health and safety conditions if requested by 

the head of the base housing management office. 

The provision would include the requirements for the head of 

each housing management office to: conduct a physical inspection 

before and after tenants occupy a residence; establish contact with 

the tenants at the 15- and 60-day marks after move-in; and maintain all test results relating to the health and safety condition of 

a housing unit for the life of the contract. 

Finally, the provision would include requirements for the private 

contractor to: disclose bonus structures for community managers 

and regional executives relating to maintenance budgets to the Secretary of Defense; share test results with tenants and housing 

management offices no later than 3 days after receipt; not conduct 

any promotion events or incentivize tenants to fill out comment 

cards or satisfaction surveys without approval from the chief of the 

installation housing management office; and notify a tenant of his 

or her right to assistance from the installation legal assistance office and provide a copy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Sustainment prior to a tenant’s agreeing to any form of settlement, 

nondisclosure, or release of liability. 

Requirements relating to contracts for privatized military 

housing (sec. 3044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to include certain requirements for 

any contract with a term of more than 10 years for the purpose of 

privatized military housing. The provision would require that contracts: allow the Department of Defense to renegotiate the contract 

at minimum every 5 years, prohibit the continued working under 

the contract of any employee who has committed work order fraud 

under the contract, and require the private contractor to pay a tenant’s relocation fees and living expenses if a tenant is required to 

move due to health or environmental hazards. 

Withholding of incentive fees for landlords of privatized 

military housing for failure to remedy a health or environmental hazard (sec. 3045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

the Secretary of Defense to withhold incentive fees, which would 

otherwise be paid to a private contractor under this subchapter, for 

failure to remedy a health or environmental hazard. 

377 

Expansion of direct hire authority for Department of Defense for childcare services providers for Department 

child development centers to include direct hire authority for installation military housing office personnel 

(sec. 3046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 559 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) to extend direct hire authority to fill civil 

service position vacancies at installation military housing offices. 

Plan on establishment of Department of Defense jurisdiction over off-base privatized military housing (sec. 3047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the 

military departments, to submit a plan to establish jurisdiction at 

locations with privatized military housing not located on a military 

installation to the congressional defense committees not later than 

30 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle D—Other Housing Matters 

Lead-based paint testing and reporting (sec. 3051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a policy under which a qualified 

individual may access a military installation to conduct lead testing, with all results to be shared with the installation civil engineer, housing management office, and major subordinate command 

with jurisdiction over the installation. Additionally, the provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to annually submit a report, not later than February 1st of each year, to the congressional 

defense committees that includes: (1) A certification indicating 

whether the Department of Defense’s military housing is in compliance with the lead-based paint requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (Public Law 94–469); (2) A detailed summary 

of the certification requirements and compliance broken out by 

military service; (3) The total number of military housing units 

that were inspected; (4) The number of military housing units that 

were not inspected; (5) The number of housing units that tested 

positive for lead; and (6) What abatement procedures were taken. 

Satisfaction survey for tenants of military housing (sec. 

3052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that each military department utilizes the same electronic satisfaction survey for all surveys relating 

to the customer service experience of all military housing residents, 

those living in both government and privately managed housing 

units. The committee believes that one standard survey will allow 

for improved data collection to pinpoint problems and best practices 

with ease and assist in regaining the trust of military families and 

servicemembers. 

378 

Information on legal services provided to members of the 

Armed Forces harmed by health or environmental hazards at military housing (sec. 3053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than 90 days after 

the enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committees 

on the legal services available to members of the armed services 

who have been harmed by health and environmental hazards while 

living in military housing. 

Mitigation of risks posed by certain items in military family 

housing units (sec. 3054) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to allow a resident of a military family housing unit to anchor any furniture, television, or large appliance to 

the wall of the unit for purposes of preventing such item from tipping over without incurring a penalty or obligation to repair the 

wall upon vacating the unit. Further, the provision would require 

the Secretary to ensure that certain freestanding furniture taller 

than 27 inches be securely anchored in furnished military family 

housing units under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. 

Technical correction to certain payments for lessors of 

privatized military housing (sec. 3055) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 606(d) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232) by authorizing additional payments to privatized housing projects for which any phase 

or portion of the project agreement was first finalized and signed 

on or before September 30, 2014. 

Pilot program to build and monitor use of single family 

homes (sec. 3056) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot program to build and 

monitor the use of not fewer than five single family homes for 

members of the Army and their families. 

Items of Special Interest 

Compliance with housing laws 

The committee is concerned that military family housing units 

under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative often do not 

meet the minimum requirements of Federal, State, and local codes. 

The committee notes that servicemembers and their families continuously make sacrifices to serve their country and should not be 

living in substandard or unsafe housing. The committee is concerned that future construction of family housing units may fall 

prey to similar second-rate construction practices if the Department of Defense does not implement more stringent requirements. 

The committee understands that Federal, State, and local governments often have different housing codes with varying standards. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a report to the Committees of Armed Services of the Senate 

379 

and the House of Representatives, no later than February 1, 2020, 

on a plan to develop a Department of Defense standard to ensure 

that all future construction for family housing, as defined under 

chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, meets a high-quality 

standard, as designated by the Secretary. The Secretary shall include in this report a plan for establishing a standard code for future housing construction, including standard inspection and permitting processes and the resources needed to implement and conduct oversight for compliance to such a standard. 

Comptroller General review of Basic Allowance for Housing 

rate determination process 

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), the goal of the 

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program is to ‘‘help members 

cover the costs of housing in the private sector.’’ To determine the 

cost of private sector housing and set local BAH rates, the DOD 

employs a contractor to collect rent and utility data from approximately 300 Military Housing Areas in the United States. The DOD 

states that the current BAH method ‘‘ensures a more accurate correlation between allowance payments and rental prices.’’ 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 

(Public Law 105–85) created the BAH program out of dissatisfaction with the legacy Basic Allowance for Quarters and Variable 

Housing Allowance system. Initially, the BAH program was designed to pay for approximately 85 percent of servicemember housing costs. Over time, BAH rates increased to cover 100 percent of 

a servicemember’s estimated housing costs. 

Concerned with the growth in military personnel costs, in 2015 

the DOD requested, and the Congress authorized, a gradual reduction in BAH. From 2015 to 2019, BAH was to be reduced by 1 percent per year to eventually cover 95 percent of a servicemember’s 

estimated housing costs. However, despite this mandated reduction 

in BAH, recent studies suggest that BAH has remained artificially 

high when compared to local housing costs in many Military Housing Areas. 

In 2018, the Center for Naval Analyses released a report titled 

‘‘The Effect of the BAH Changes on Privatized Family Housing, 

Volume 1: Theory and Overall Results.’’ The report compared BAH 

to local housing costs and found that ‘‘in most Navy [public-private 

venture housing] locations, the BAH rates actually increased compared to the local housing costs.’’ Based on these findings, the committee is concerned that the underlying BAH rate determination 

process is ineffective in achieving an ‘‘accurate correlation’’ of allowance payments and local housing market costs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of DOD’s policies and processes 

for determining BAH. Preliminary observations shall be provided 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives by the end of February 2020. At that time, a 

final product due date will be determined. The review shall include: 

(1) An explanation of DOD’s current process for setting BAH; (2) 

A quantitative assessment of whether the DOD implemented recent reductions in BAH in accordance with the law; (3) A discussion of alternative methods for calculating BAH that may be more 

380 

objective in capturing military housing area rental costs; and (4) 

An assessment of the feasibility of requiring BAH to align with 

other housing cost data captured by the Federal government. 

Consideration of privatized housing conditions in evaluation of commanders and senior enlisted personnel 

The committee is aware that the Services are taking steps to address the shortcomings of the chain of command in oversight of 

privatized military housing. The committee is concerned, however, 

that lasting institutional changes need to be made in order to ensure that effective oversight over privatized housing occurs. As 

such, the committee strongly believes that the Services should review how commanders and senior enlisted personnel are evaluated 

related to the oversight of privatized housing. The committee notes 

two types of metrics that could be considered, when appropriate: 

the facility condition index and the results of installation-specific 

resident satisfaction surveys. The committee strongly encourages 

the Department to examine which other areas related to privatized 

housing would spark a lasting response from commanders and the 

senior enlisted personnel responsible for privatized housing. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to 

brief the congressional defense committees not later than October 

1, 2019, on the criteria currently being used and any metrics that 

could be used regarding privatized military housing, including 

those relevant to the evaluation of commanders and other 

servicemembers. The briefing shall include a service by service 

comparison and an implementation timeline for the institution of 

chosen metrics. 

Plan for management of privatized military housing units if 

a contract relating to those housing units is rescinded 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense does 

not have a plan in place to move forward in the event that an installation housing contract is rescinded by the Secretary of Defense. The committee notes that, when asked, the Department has 

not had a unified answer about the liabilities, both financial and 

organizational, that the Services would face in this contingency. 

Whether it is re-competition of the agreement or the service’s taking responsibility for housing, the committee needs to understand 

what the ramifications of such decisions would be. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, no later than February 1, 2020, 

on a formal written contingency plan for the management of housing units for each military installation under subchapter IV of 

chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code. The report shall include the financial liability for each installation as well as alternative courses of actions should the current contract be terminated. 

381 

Referral to Department of Justice of allegations of military 

housing fraud 

The committee notes with grave concern that testimony provided 

by military families before the committee described allegations of 

potentially fraudulent activity by private housing companies engaged in real estate agreements with the Department of Defense. 

These allegations include but are not limited to: (1) Tampering 

with housing satisfaction surveys submitted by military families; 

(2) Unwarranted charges to outgoing military tenants to replace 

carpets or to pay for other maintenance problems without remedying these issues before the arrival of the next military family; 

(3) Maintenance offices ‘‘closing out’’ work order requests without 

adequately resolving the underlying problem; (4) Disregarding 

fixed-rate leases and increasing rent prices despite guarantees to 

renew leases at market rate; (5) Tampering with the results of air 

quality inspections, including opening windows during air quality 

checks to disguise low air quality; and (6) Hiring unqualified, inexperienced employees to address maintenance problems and concerns. 

Therefore, the committee urges each secretary of the military departments to conduct an in-depth review and assessment of each 

such real estate agreement under the jurisdiction of that secretary. 

Review of each agreement is necessary, given the scope of issues 

associated with the privatized military housing program and the 

lack of standardization in real estate agreements between the DOD 

and private housing companies. Further, the committee urges each 

military department, following its review and assessment, to request that the Department of Justice conduct criminal or civil investigations into whether any private housing company has engaged in conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371) 

or any other conduct in contravention of any law prohibiting fraud, 

waste, abuse, or any other criminal or civil violation. 

Report on service training for installation commanders 

The committee is concerned that the current unsatisfactory state 

of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative is, in part, due to 

a lack of oversight by the military chain of command. The committee notes that the Services have admitted that the chain of command must have a larger role in ensuring the safety and welfare 

of its servicemembers and that many of the available education opportunities in pre-command courses, public enumeration of resident 

responsibilities, and on-base legal resources have either been discontinued or need robust enhancement. 

Accordingly, not later than September 1, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries 

of the military departments, to deliver a report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

on Department-wide standards and education requirements to address the concern that the chain of command feels that it does not 

have the necessary training or authority to serve as an advocate 

for servicemembers. The report shall include a plan for pre-command courses with an emphasis on privatized housing oversight, to 

include instruction that unit commanders and installation commanders are ultimately responsible for ensuring safe, clean, adeVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
382 

quate housing that meets all Federal, State, and local codes and 

standards for habitability. Additionally, this report shall include a 

plan for how new military family tenants will be educated on what 

responsibilities they have to maintain their homes and how to report health, safety, and welfare concerns. 

Review of Air Force Civil Engineer Center organizational 

structure 

The committee notes that during its investigation of the Military 

Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), a common theme throughout the Department of Defense was the chain of commands either 

not being aware, or not feeling empowered to protect the health, 

safety, and welfare of its servicemembers. The committee believes 

that, while the chain of command must be engaged at the installation level, senior civilian and military leadership in the Department must be aware of and able to conduct oversight germane to 

the privatized military housing issues. 

The committee is aware that the Department of the Air Force is 

the only service that has a civilian responsible for the service’s installation engineering command, the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer 

Center (AFCEC). The committee notes that this position reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment without any flow of information to 

uniformed Air Force officers in the major subordinate command. 

The committee believes that the military chain of command must 

be reinserted at the installation level and that the health, safety, 

and welfare of on-base servicemembers and their families is the responsibility of the entire chain of command. The committee also 

notes the importance of civilian counterparts from the Senior Executive Service in maintaining the institutional knowledge of the 

command. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to review the organizational structure of AFCEC, including information flow through both military and civilian channels. During 

the review, the Secretary of the Air Force should consider the 

structure of the other services’ engineering commands and analyze 

which structure is most beneficial for the flow of information and 

for conducting appropriate oversight of the MHPI program. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to deliver a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than November 1, 2019. 

(383) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs and 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 cleanup 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 

Technical corrections to National Nuclear Security Administration Act and Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make certain 

technical corrections and conforming amendments to the National 

Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106–65) and the 

Atomic Energy Defense Act (Public Law 107–314). 

National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System 

(sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would adapt the 

personnel system demonstration project carried out by the National 

Nuclear Security Administration since 2008 into a permanent alternative personnel system. 

384 

Contracting, program management, scientific, engineering, 

and technical positions at National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would remove the 

statutory cap on the use of excepted service hiring authority pursuant to section 3241 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106–65) at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This provision would not modify the statutory cap on the number of federal employees at the NNSA. 

The committee continues to encourage the NNSA to prioritize 

use of this hiring authority, as well as its federal billets, to support 

priority programs in the Office of Defense Programs and supporting 

functions. The committee also expects that the NNSA will support 

full staffing of the Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation, which contributes value to the organization well above its 

small size. 

Prohibition on use of laboratory-directed research and development funds for general and administrative overhead costs (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of laboratory-directed research and development funds for general and administrative overhead costs at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s laboratories, sites, and plants. 

Prohibition on use of funds for advanced naval nuclear fuel 

system based on low-enriched uranium (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of any funds at the National Nuclear Security Administration to conduct research and development of an 

advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched uranium 

unless the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the 

Secretary of the Navy submit certain certifications to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee notes that section 3118(c) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) required the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a determination as to whether the United States should 

continue to pursue such research and development. Pursuant to 

this section, in a letter to the congressional defense committees 

dated March 25, 2018, the Secretaries of Energy and the Navy stated that such a research and development effort would cost about 

$1 billion over a 10-to-15 year period, ‘‘with success not assured.’’ 

It would also result in a reactor design that would be ‘‘less capable, 

more expensive, and unlikely to support current life-of-ship submarine reactors,’’ which would reduce operational availability due 

to mid-life refueling requirements. As a result, the Secretaries of 

Energy and the Navy determined that the United States should not 

pursue such research and development. 

385 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports 

Estimation of costs of meeting defense environmental cleanup milestones required by consent orders (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to submit, along with the budget justification 

materials, a report on the cost of meeting milestones required by 

a consent order at each defense nuclear facility at which environmental cleanup activities are taking place. 

Extension of suspension of certain assessments relating to 

nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

suspension through fiscal year 2023 of a requirement for the Comptroller General of the United States to review the budget submission of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee notes that the Comptroller General will conduct a similar 

review through this time period, as required by section 1043 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81), as amended. 

Repeal of requirement for review relating to enhanced procurement authority (sec. 3123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would terminate the 

requirement for the Comptroller General of the United States to review the Secretary of Energy’s enhanced procurement authority 

after fiscal year 2019. 

Determination of effect of treaty obligations with respect to 

producing tritium (sec. 3124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to determine whether the Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, signed at Washington on July 3, 1958, permits obtaining 

uranium from the United Kingdom to produce tritium for defense 

purposes using reactor irradiation. The committee supports a broad 

interpretation of the Agreement, which currently allows the United 

States and the United Kingdom to share resources and information 

related to atomic energy defense activities. The provision would require the Secretary to submit the determination to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

Assessment of high energy density physics (sec. 3125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies 

of Science to conduct an assessment of the current status of the 

field of high energy density physics. The committee notes that scientific study in this subject has relevant applications in the 

NNSA’s defense programs and also in civilian fields. The assessment would be due to the congressional defense committees not 

later than 18 months after the Administrator of the NNSA enters 

into the arrangement. 

386 

Budget Items 

Federal salaries 

The budget request included $434.7 million for Federal Salaries 

and Expenses at the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), of which $326.8 million was identified for salaries and 

benefits. 

The committee notes that, according to the NNSA’s budget documentation, this salary amount would support 1,753 federal employees, while the statutory cap remains 1,690. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.7 mil- lion in Federal Salaries and Expenses, for a total of $423.0 million. 

Technology maturation initiatives 

The budget request included $39.3 million for research and de- velopment (R&D) support; $236.2 million for R&D certification and 

safety; $46.5 million for enhanced surety; and $48.4 million for 

component manufacturing development. 

The committee notes that the early development work for the 

W87–1 program, formerly known as Interoperable Warhead-1, was 

suspended for 5 years. In order to recover lost schedule produced 

by that delay, as well as enable other future modernization programs, the committee encourages the National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s technology maturation initiatives. The committee 

believes that these investments, highlighted in the Administrator’s 

unfunded priorities list, will help modernize obsolete materials and 

processes, increase production capacity and efficiency, and buy 

down risk. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends increases as follows: $1.0 million for R&D support, for a total of $40.3 million; $10.0 million for R&D certification and safety, for a total of $246.2 million; 

$8.0 million for enhanced surety, for a total of $54.4 million; and 

$10.0 million for component manufacturing development, for a total 

of $58.4 million. 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program 

The budget request included $39.8 million for the Stockpile Responsiveness Program at the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The committee strongly supports this program as an effective 

tool to assist with recruitment, retention, and training of a highlyskilled workforce as well as a means of improving resilience of the 

nuclear enterprise more broadly. The committee also understands 

that the program may be expanded to include the production sites 

to appreciate the same benefits outside of the design and engineering laboratories. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $40.8 million, for a total of $80.6 million, for the Stockpile Responsiveness 

Program. 

Nonproliferation Stewardship Program 

The budget request included $304.0 million in Proliferation Detection, of which $22.5 million was for the Nonproliferation Stewardship Program. 

387 

The committee notes that this program intends to initiate a strategic review of mission needs across the U.S. government in fiscal 

year 2020 while simultaneously beginning testbed development. 

The committee encourages the program to formulate a multi-year 

plan to address gaps in the proliferation detection architecture and 

then request funds for technological approaches to closing those 

gaps in future fiscal years. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5 million for the Nonproliferation Stewardship Program, for a total of 

$284.5 in Proliferation Detection. 

Emergency Operations 

The budget request included $35.5 million in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Emergency Operations (EO) program within Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response. 

The committee notes that the EO program has taken on additional Department of Energy-wide roles in recent years, including 

development and implementation of several presidential orders relating to homeland security and Department-wide continuity of 

government and operations. While the committee commends the 

EO program for its high-quality work, the committee believes that 

the NNSA’s budget (and the 050 budget account writ large) should 

not pay for Department-wide functions above its proportional 

share. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.6 million for Emergency Operations within Nuclear Counterterrorism 

Incident Response, for a total of $25.9 million. The committee encourages the Department to provide sufficient funding for the EO 

program using other appropriate accounts. 

Enterprise Assessments 

The budget request included $81.3 million for the Office of Enterprise Assessments (EA) at the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The committee notes that $3.0 million of the EA budget request 

was identified to hire employees to support the new Performance 

Improvement Office within the Office of the DOE Chief Financial 

Officer. The committee notes that these employees would support 

non-defense, DOE-wide performance improvement efforts. As such, 

the committee believes that they would be more appropriately 

funded using non-053 budget accounts. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million for the Office of Enterprise Assessment, for a total of $78.3 

million. 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

The budget request for the Department of Energy included 

$116.0 million for the Yucca Mountain and Interim Storage programs, of which $26.0 million was for the Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of $26.0 

million for the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund. 

388 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of lithium sustainment program and production 

project 

The committee is aware that there is an increased demand for 

lithium as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

conducts multiple life extension programs (LEPs). In 2015, the 

Government Accountability Office published a report (‘‘NNSA 

Should Ensure Equal Consideration of Alternatives for Lithium 

Production,’’ GAO–15–525) that found that the NNSA has been unable to produce lithium because of deteriorating conditions in Manhattan Project-era infrastructure at the Y–12 National Security 

Complex in Tennessee. Instead, the NNSA relies on a less efficient 

process that removes impurities from existing lithium supplies. The 

NNSA intends to use this process as part of a bridging strategy 

until it develops a new production capability. Design of this project 

at Y–12 has just begun and is expected to become operational in 

fiscal year 2027. The committee is concerned that the NNSA intends to rely on the current aging facilities through the next decade 

for ongoing LEPs and modernization programs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the NNSA’s 

planning and assumptions for the lithium sustainment program 

and the production capability project. The review shall include: (1) 

The status of the sustainment program, including the supply of 

lithium, projected ability to complete activities through 2030, and 

management of the program; and (2) The status of design activities 

and current cost and schedule estimates for the lithium production 

capability project and how these schedules align with the LEPs and 

other modernization projects. 

The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing on initial findings no later than July 1, 2020, with a report submitted by a date 

to be agreed upon at the time of the briefing. 

Briefing on ability to meet requirements for plutonium pit 

production 

In April 2018, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) completed an engineering assessment of four options to 

produce plutonium pits to meet the requirement of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) for 80 pits per year by 2030. The report provided 

the basis for the Administrator of the NNSA’s recommended alternative for NNSA’s plutonium capabilities. On May 4, 2018, the 

Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council provided to the committee 

written certification that the NNSA’s proposed strategy was acceptable to the Secretary of Defense and ‘‘represent[ed] a resilient and 

responsive option’’ for production of 80 plutonium pits per year by 

2030. The proposed strategy would produce 30 pits per year at Los 

Alamos National Laboratory by 2026 and the additional 50 pits per 

year by repurposing the cancelled Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication 

Facility at the Savannah River Site by 2030. 

As required by section 3120 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232), 

the DOD submitted an independent assessment of NNSA’s strategy 

in April 2019. The assessment concluded that a key milestone will 

389 

be achieving the goal of 30 pits per year at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The assessment further concluded, ‘‘[n]o available option can be expected to provide 80 pits per year by 2030.’’ 

The assessment also called on the DOD to ‘‘evaluate how best to 

respond to this requirement shortfall.’’ 

In light of the specific concerns raised in the independent assessment of NNSA’s plutonium strategy, not later than December 1, 

2019, the Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council shall provide to 

the congressional defense committees a briefing on the impacts to 

military requirements and other nuclear programs and possible options to mitigate these risks in the event that the DOD’s requirement for 80 pits per year is not met by 2030. 

Comptroller General review of applicability of Section 809 

Panel recommendations to the Department of Energy 

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) tasked the Secretary of Defense to 

establish an advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition regulations for the Department of Defense (DOD). Between 

January 2018 and January 2019, the Section 809 Panel issued several reports containing recommendations related to improving the 

defense acquisition process. While these recommendations were not 

aimed at the Department of Energy (DOE), the committee believes 

that the DOE and its National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) face a number of the same acquisition challenges as the 

DOD. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to assess the application of a subset of these recommendations to the DOE and NNSA. 

First, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review 

issues affecting DOE’s acquisition workforce. Specifically, the committee is interested in DOE’s workforce planning efforts, particularly related to: (1) How the DOE determines the number of acquisition professionals needed and the skills and training required for 

those positions; (2) Whether DOE’s acquisition professionals attain 

the needed training and skills; (3) Any challenges in recruitment 

and retention of DOE’s acquisition workforce; and (4) Any systemic 

challenges for those professionals in performing their acquisition 

oversight responsibilities. 

Second, the committee finds the portfolio management framework recommended by the Section 809 Panel compelling and therefore directs the Comptroller General to review NNSA’s efforts to 

identify its base capabilities and the applicability of a portfoliobased approach to managing its Defense Programs, consistent with 

the recommendations made to the DOD by the Section 809 Panel. 

Finally, Volume 1 of the Section 809 Panel report provides examples of essential audit and nonaudit services provided by DOD 

agencies across the contract lifecycle. Most of these services are 

performed pursuant to requirements in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation, which are generally applicable to all agencies, including the DOE. The committee directs the Comptroller General to review how the DOE obtains the required audit and nonaudit services and whether there are opportunities for improvement or efficiency in how the DOE obtains these services. 

390 

The Comptroller General should provide preliminary briefings on 

these three topics by March 1, 2020, June 1, 2020, and September 

30, 2020, respectively, with reports to follow on a timeline agreed 

to at the times of the briefings. 

Comptroller General review of DOE Order 140.1 

In May 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new 

order, Order 140.1, that governs the interface of the DOE with the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). The committee 

notes that the DNFSB has raised concerns that the new order 

could limit the DNFSB’s oversight of many defense nuclear facilities. The committee also notes that the DOE issued Order 140.1 

without consultation with the DNFSB or with the local communities most impacted by the Department’s nuclear facilities. 

The Board has communicated its concerns regarding DOE Order 

140.1 in letters to the Secretary of Energy and has held public 

hearings to gather information on its implementation by the DOE. 

Specific concerns include possible new restrictions and protocols regarding the Board’s access to information, facilities, and personnel 

that could diminish the Board’s ability to perform its statutory 

mandate. The Board also conveyed a commitment to collaborate 

with the DOE to resolve these concerns. The committee notes that 

the legislation establishing the Board, section 314 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–73; 42 U.S.C. 2286c(a)), provides that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Energy shall fully cooperate with the 

Board and provide the Board with ready access to such facilities, 

personnel, and information as the Board considers necessary to 

carry out its responsibilities.’’ 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review DOE Order 140.1 and report on how DOE’s 

implementation of the order has affected the Board’s ability to 

meets its statutory responsibilities. 

The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing to the congressional defense committee no later than March 15, 2020, with a report to follow at a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Comptroller General study of radioactive waste at West Valley, New York 

The committee recognizes that a disposal pathway is needed for 

radioactive waste at the West Valley New York Service Center and, 

in order for an informed decision to be made on the appropriate option for future disposal, a report is necessary. The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the 

congressional defense committees by November 1, 2020, a report 

describing the following: (1) The volumes, origins, and types of radioactive waste at the Western New York Service Center in West 

Valley, New York; (2) What options have been identified for disposal of each such type of radioactive waste; (3) What is known 

about the costs of, and time frames for, each such option; (4) The 

benefits and challenges of each such option, according to the State 

of New York and the Department of Energy; and (5) As of the date 

of the enactment of this Act, how much has been spent on the disposal of radioactive waste associated with the demonstration 

project prescribed by section 2(a) of the West Valley Demonstration 

391 

Project Act (Public Law 96–368) and what volumes and types of radioactive waste have been disposed of from the Western New York 

Service Center. 

Comptroller General to continue ongoing evaluation of the 

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee notes that the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Environmental Management (EM) continues to appear on the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk List report, which cites 

programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. 

EM’s largest project resides in Hanford, Washington. This site, 

whose mission is nuclear waste cleanup and environmental restoration, has faced numerous technical challenges, cost overruns, and 

schedule delays. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford 

Waste Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance, 

technology readiness levels, contractor assurance, and project management, with a briefing and time for this briefing to be mutually 

agreed upon. 

Plutonium science and metallurgy 

The committee is aware that numerous entities at the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and laboratories of both entities are engaged in efforts to better understand plutonium science and metallurgy. The 

committee is concerned, however, that these efforts are not fully coordinated and integrated. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA, 

in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science at the 

DOE, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, 

no later than March 31, 2020, on research in plutonium science 

and metallurgy at the NNSA. The report should list key fundamental questions that will be addressed within the next 5 to 10 

years with descriptions of programs that are either ongoing or 

planned to address them. The report shall also include a 5-year 

funding profile for plutonium science and metallurgy, including applicable facilities and capital equipment. 

Report on the Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management 

Created in 2003, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of 

Legacy Management (LM) serves as the long-term steward for sites 

formerly used in nuclear weapons development and production. 

After the DOE has finished remediation and cleanup of contamination, LM assumes responsibility for site monitoring and maintenance and performs other long-term duties such as treating soil 

and groundwater to remedy any continuing hazards. LM currently 

is responsible for about $78 billion, or 16 percent, of DOE’s overall 

$494 billion in environmental liabilities. Despite LM’s already managing 100 sites around the country with an annual budget of $150 

million, LM-managed environmental liabilities are expected to 

grow as more sites are transferred from DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. The committee is concerned that LM is alVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
392 

ready struggling to manage the current level of environmental liabilities, which are expected to grow significantly. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to, no later than March 1, 2020, submit a report to 

the committee on LM operations, including the nature of its environmental liabilities, the steps LM is taking to address the liabilities, the extent that LM’s liabilities are expected to grow over the 

next 10 years, and LM plans to address growth in liabilities. 

Report on the Department of Energy’s tank closures 

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for storing and 

treating about 90 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous 

waste, located in nearly 240 large underground tanks at 3 sites 

across the country—the Hanford Site, the Savannah River Site, 

and Idaho National Laboratory. As of 2019, the DOE has treated 

about 7 million gallons of waste at the Savannah River Site and 

has closed 9 of its 51 tanks in place by removing the waste and 

then filling the empty tanks with grout. At the Idaho site, the DOE 

has treated about 8 million gallons of waste and closed 8 of its 11 

tanks in place, also by removing the waste and filling the tanks 

with grout. Conversely, the DOE has not closed any of the 177 

tanks at its Hanford Site. In January 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that a final decision has not yet 

been made on how to clean up and close Hanford’s tanks. The GAO 

noted that closing the tanks in place could cost about $18 billion 

less than removing the waste and then exhuming and disposing of 

the tanks elsewhere. 

Not later than January 1, 2020, the Secretary of Energy shall 

provide to the congressional defense committees a report that discusses tank closures at the Savannah River Site and Idaho National Laboratory. The report shall include details on: the status of 

tank closures at these two sites, including any lessons learned; the 

extent to which the tank closures have met environmental performance requirements; costs associated with tank closure; and steps 

taken to ensure that closed tanks continue to meet environmental 

performance requirements in the future. The report shall also include the DOE’s plans for future tank closures at the Savannah 

River Site and Idaho National Laboratory and the status of its 

plans for closing tanks at the Hanford site. No later than January 

1, 2021, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report 

to the congressional defense committees on the status of tank closures at the Hanford Site, including the costs and risks associated 

with closing Hanford’s tanks and any additional information that 

may be useful related to tank closures at the Hanford Site. 

(393) 

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 $29.5 

million, consistent with the budget request, but notes extensive reservations with this authorization and Board operations. 

In 2018, the Board acknowledged that it was no longer operating 

as effectively as it has at times in the past and commissioned the 

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to perform an 

organizational assessment. While the committee commends the 

Board for taking that step, the results of the NAPA study, compiled 

in ‘‘Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Organizational Assessment’’ (November 2018), paint a disturbing picture. 

Consistent with several other independent assessments over the 

last 5 years, the NAPA study characterizes the Board’s recent contribution to the Department of Energy as ‘‘negligible’’ and describes 

its ‘‘current subpar level and quality of output.’’ The report describes the relationship between sitting Board members as ‘‘often 

uncivil and unhealthy,’’ and the environment as characterized by a 

‘‘lack of collegiality’’ and ‘‘mutual suspicion and distrust.’’ In the 

same time period, employee satisfaction and morale has declined 

precipitously. These issues, in addition to insufficient attention to 

professional development and career stewardship, have contributed 

to high levels of personnel turnover and difficulties in recruiting 

and retention of talented staff. Additionally, the report notes, and 

the committee corroborates, decreased levels of engagement with 

key stakeholders outside the Board, including the Congress. 

While the provisions recommended in Title 32 of this Act would 

address some of the concerns raised by the NAPA report, the committee believes that the sitting Board members must take responsibility for changing the culture and improving the work product of 

the Board to rectify current and persistent deficiencies and to better execute its critical function. 

Improvement of management and organization of Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

hiring of an executive director for operations as a senior employee 

at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The provision 

would also authorize the Chairman of the Board, subject to the approval of the other Board members, to organize the staff of the 

Board as the Chairman considers appropriate to accomplish the 

mission of the Board. 

The committee notes that this provision is consistent with the 

recommendations of the National Academy of Public AdministraVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:40 Jun 13, 2019 Jkt 036532 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR048.XXX SR048
394 

tion’s report titled ‘‘Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Organizational Assessment’’ (November 2018). Also in keeping with that 

report’s recommendations, the committee encourages the Chairman 

to consult and communicate with the staff and other Board members while considering organizational changes. 

Membership of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 

3203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would, beginning 

April 1, 2020, prohibit members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board from serving on expired terms and from serving two 

consecutive terms. The provision would also require the President 

to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) to maintain a list of qualified individuals who 

might be considered for nomination in case of a vacancy. Finally, 

if the President is unable to submit a nomination to fill a vacancy 

on the Board within 180 days, the provision would require him to 

submit to the committee an explanation of the reasons for that inability and a plan to submit such a nomination within the following 

90 days; this required process would be repeated until the nomination had been submitted. 

The committee notes that several elements of this provision are 

consistent with the National Academy of Public Administration 

(NAPA) November 2018 study titled ‘‘Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board Organizational Assessment.’’ The committee also 

notes that the subsection of the provision related to Presidential reporting in case of inability to fill a vacancy on the Board within 180 

days is similar to a provision originally in the Board’s enabling 

statute at the time of the Board’s creation. 

The committee understands that elements of this provision would 

increase the risk of the Board’s falling below a quorum for a period 

of time but anticipates that other elements would encourage the 

President to fill newly-created vacancies promptly. The committee 

believes that the appalling conditions described in the NAPA report 

merit consideration of more rapid turnover of the Board’s membership. 

(395) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 

(397) 

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. 

(399) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 

400 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................ 3,696,429 –16,000 3,680,429 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................... 0 3,863,497 3,863,497 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................... 4,715,566 174,200 4,889,766 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................... 0 2,694,548 2,694,548 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................... 7,443,101 18,326 7,461,427 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 18,522,204 492,724 19,014,928 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 0 4,174,944 4,174,944 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ...................... 0 981,314 981,314 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ..................... 23,783,710 360,700 24,144,410 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ...................................... 9,652,956 –163,823 9,489,133 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................. 3,090,449 3,090,449 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................ 16,784,279 1,701,800 18,486,079 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................... 2,889,187 2,889,187 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 2,414,383 2,414,383 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............. 0 1,667,961 1,667,961 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 20,687,857 662,100 21,349,957 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................. 5,109,416 –429,663 4,679,753 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ................. 99,200 99,200 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE I—PROCUREMENT .......................... 118,888,737 16,182,628 135,071,365 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ....... 12,192,771 151,355 12,344,126 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ........ 20,270,499 –208,740 20,061,759 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ............ 45,616,122 719,653 46,335,775 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ........... 24,346,953 713,300 25,060,253 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ........................ 221,200 221,200 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 

TEST AND EVALUATION ........................................... 102,647,545 1,375,568 104,023,113 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................... 22,797,873 19,135,951 41,933,824 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................... 1,080,103 1,949,007 3,029,110 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................... 3,335,755 4,297,848 7,633,603 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................ 25,952,718 23,516,564 49,469,282 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ............ 3,928,045 4,001,679 7,929,724 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................... 261,284 863,832 1,125,116 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............... 61,090 230,986 292,076 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................... 21,278,499 23,621,733 44,900,232 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE .............. 72,436 72,436 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................ 2,231,445 1,165,373 3,396,818 

401 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................. 3,612,156 3,115,073 6,727,229 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........ 37,399,341 144,000 37,543,341 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .............................. 1,933,869 1,933,869 

UNDISTRIBUTED ........................................................... 0 –590,000 –590,000 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 123,944,614 81,452,046 205,396,660 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .................................................. 143,476,503 –918,980 142,557,523 

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................. 7,816,815 7,816,815 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL ............. 151,293,318 –918,980 150,374,338 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ............................................. 1,426,211 10,000 1,436,211 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ............... 985,499 985,499 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ... 799,402 799,402 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................... 363,499 363,499 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ....................................... 32,998,687 11,000 33,009,687 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....... 36,573,298 21,000 36,594,298 

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ......................................................... 533,347,512 98,112,262 631,459,774 

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Army ............................................................................. 1,453,499 –196,500 1,256,999 

Navy ............................................................................. 2,805,743 79,039 2,884,782 

Air Force ...................................................................... 2,179,230 –460,400 1,718,830 

Defense-Wide ............................................................... 2,504,190 23,645 2,527,835 

Army National Guard ................................................... 210,819 84,000 294,819 

Air National Guard ...................................................... 165,971 57,000 222,971 

Army Reserve ............................................................... 60,928 60,928 

Navy Reserve ............................................................... 54,955 54,955 

Air Force Reserve ......................................................... 59,750 9,800 69,550 

NATO Security Investment Program ............................ 144,040 144,040 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................... 9,639,125 –403,416 9,235,709 

FAMILY HOUSING 

Construction, Army ...................................................... 141,372 141,372 

O&M, Army ................................................................... 357,907 65,000 422,907 

Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ........................ 47,661 47,661 

O&M, Navy and Marine Corps ..................................... 317,870 81,000 398,870 

Construction, Air Force ................................................ 103,631 103,631 

O&M, Air Force ............................................................ 295,016 65,000 360,016 

O&M, Defense-Wide ..................................................... 57,000 57,000 

Improvement Fund ....................................................... 3,045 3,045 

Unaccmp HSG Improvement Fund .............................. 500 500 

402 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING ...................................... 1,324,002 211,000 1,535,002 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

Army BRAC .................................................................. 66,111 66,111 

Navy BRAC ................................................................... 158,349 158,349 

Air Force BRAC ............................................................ 54,066 54,066 

SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ......... 278,526 0 278,526 

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ......................................................... 11,241,653 –192,416 11,049,237 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) .......................................... 544,589,165 97,919,846 642,509,011 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................... 137,808 137,808 

SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................. 137,808 0 137,808 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ............................ 434,699 –11,700 422,999 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ................................................... 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................... 1,993,302 –29,100 1,964,202 

NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................ 1,648,396 0 1,648,396 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .................................................................. 16,485,000 29,000 16,514,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .......................... 5,506,501 0 5,506,501 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................ 1,035,339 –3,000 1,032,339 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ......................... 26,000 –26,000 0 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ................................................................... 6,567,840 –29,000 6,538,840 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................... 23,190,648 0 23,190,648 

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILTIIES SAFETY BOARD .......... 29,450 29,450 

SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION ........................................................... 29,450 0 29,450 

403 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL 

AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 23,220,098 0 23,220,098 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUBFUNCTION 053) ....................................................... 23,220,098 0 23,220,098 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET 

REQUEST ................................................................. 567,809,263 97,919,846 665,729,109 

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................ 381,541 381,541 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................... 4,645,755 –3,207,697 1,438,058 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................... 353,454 353,454 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................... 2,843,230 –2,694,548 148,682 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................... 1,139,650 –8,200 1,131,450 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 119,045 119,045 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 4,332,710 –4,235,244 97,466 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ...................... 1,186,128 –981,314 204,814 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ...................................... 357,600 357,600 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................. 20,589 20,589 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................ 309,110 309,110 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................... 201,671 201,671 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............. 2,607,394 –1,667,961 939,433 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 4,193,098 –655,000 3,538,098 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................. 452,047 –5,000 447,047 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT .......................................... 23,143,022 –13,454,964 9,688,058 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ....... 204,124 204,124 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ........ 164,410 164,410 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ............ 450,248 –322,000 128,248 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ........... 827,950 –426,000 401,950 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 

EVALUATION ............................................................ 1,646,732 –748,000 898,732 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................... 37,987,549 –19,214,611 18,772,938 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................... 1,986,599 –1,949,007 37,592 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................... 4,376,939 –4,293,648 83,291 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................... 4,075,530 4,075,530 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................... 728,448 728,448 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................ 31,734,683 –22,741,724 8,992,959 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ............ 5,123,470 –3,658,679 1,464,791 

404 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................... 886,868 –863,832 23,036 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............... 239,693 –230,986 8,707 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................... 33,028,712 –23,292,333 9,736,379 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................ 1,195,131 –1,165,373 29,758 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................. 3,291,982 –3,115,073 176,909 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........ 8,448,612 –30,500 8,418,112 

SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................. 133,104,216 –80,555,766 52,548,450 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .................................................. 4,485,808 4,485,808 

SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................ 4,485,808 0 4,485,808 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ............................................. 20,100 20,100 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ... 163,596 163,596 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................... 24,254 24,254 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ....................................... 347,746 347,746 

COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) .......... 1,045,000 –100,000 945,000 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................... 1,600,696 –100,000 1,500,696 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Army ............................................................................. 9,389,218 –9,288,500 100,718 

Navy ............................................................................. 94,570 976,148 1,070,718 

Air Force ...................................................................... 314,738 1,525,700 1,840,438 

Defense-Wide ............................................................... 46,000 3,675,313 3,721,313 

Army National Guard ................................................... 50,000 50,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................... 9,844,526 –3,061,339 6,783,187 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) 

OCO BUDGET REQUEST ........................................... 173,825,000 –97,920,069 75,904,931 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) 741,634,263 –223 741,634,040 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 

(FUNCTION 600) ...................................................... 64,300 64,300 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

TITLE X—GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ................. [5,000,000 ] [4,000,000 ] 

TITLE XV—SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ................ [4,500,000 ] [2,500,000 ] 

(405) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 

406 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES 

COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, BASE BUDGET 

(051) .............................................................................. 544,589,165 97,919,846 642,509,011 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 23,220,098 23,220,098 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................. 173,825,000 –97,920,069 75,904,931 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ..................................... 741,634,263 –223 741,634,040 

TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS TO NON-DEFENSE FUNCTIONS 

TRANSFER FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CAPTAIN JAMES A. LOVELL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE CENTER ................................................................................ –127,000 –127,000 

DOD-VA HEALTH CARE SHARING INCENTIVE FUND ........... –15,000 –15,000 

SUBTOTAL, TRANSFER FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEMILITARY (051) ............................................................. –142,000 –142,000 

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 .......................... 34,000 34,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY .............................................................................. 8,000 8,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ... 34,000 34,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ... 76,000 0 76,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS .................................. 8,421,000 8,421,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ............. 8,421,000 0 8,421,000 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) ................................................................... 8,497,000 0 8,497,000 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ..................... 718,348,165 –223 718,347,942 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 23,220,098 23,220,098 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................................. 8,421,000 8,421,000 

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050 ...................................................................... 749,989,263 –223 749,989,040 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE 

MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND ........................................ 8,577,000 8,577,000 

407 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2020 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY ........... 1,818,000 1,818,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS ....................................................... –1,869,000 –1,869,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ... 8,526,000 0 8,526,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND OTHER ............................. 1,495,000 1,495,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) 1,495,000 0 1,495,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ........ 54,000 54,000 

PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER ............ 514,000 514,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ............. 568,000 0 568,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS 

(050) .............................................................................. 10,578,000 0 10,578,000 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ..................... 726,874,165 –223 726,873,942 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 24,715,098 24,715,098 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................................. 8,989,000 8,989,000 

TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) .............. 760,578,263 –223 760,578,040 

(409) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

410 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 1 16,000 –1 –16,000 0 0 

Program zeroed out in FYDP ............................................................................ [–1 ] [–16,000 ] 

4 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ......................................................................................................... 0 23,510 0 23,510 

ROTARY 

5 TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (TUAS) ..................................................... 0 12,100 0 12,100 8 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 48 806,849 48 806,849 9 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN AP ..................................................................... 0 190,870 0 190,870 

10 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ................................................................... 0 0 3 105,000 3 105,000 

Increase fielding for Active and ARNG units .................................................. [3 ] [105,000 ] 

12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 73 1,411,540 –7 –140,000 66 1,271,540 

Funding ahead of acquisition strategy ........................................................... [–7 ] [–140,000 ] 

13 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) AP ................................................................. 0 79,572 0 79,572 14 UH–60 BLACK HAWK L AND V MODELS .................................................................... 25 169,290 8 35,000 33 204,290 

Increase fielding for ARNG units ..................................................................... [8 ] [35,000 ] 

15 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 8 140,290 8 140,290 

16 CH–47 HELICOPTER AP ............................................................................................. 0 18,186 0 18,186 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

19 UNIVERSAL GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (UAS) ................................................... 0 2,090 0 2,090 

411 

20 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ................................................................................................. 0 14,699 0 14,699 21 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 35,189 0 35,189 22 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 58,172 0 58,172 23 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 11,785 0 11,785 24 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) .......................................................................................... 0 5,677 0 5,677 25 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 6,566 0 6,566 26 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 3,859 0 3,859 27 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 15,476 0 15,476 28 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 6,744 0 6,744 29 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 105,442 0 105,442 30 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 164,315 0 164,315 32 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 30,966 0 30,966 33 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 8,983 0 8,983 34 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 10,205 0 10,205 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

35 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 52,297 0 52,297 36 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 8,388 0 8,388 

37 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 13,999 0 13,999 38 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................. 0 168,784 0 168,784 

OTHER SUPPORT 

39 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 1,777 0 1,777 40 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 18,624 0 18,624 41 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 48,255 0 48,255 42 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 32,738 0 32,738 44 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 0 2,201 0 2,201 45 LAUNCHER GUIDED MISSILE: LONGBOW HELLFIRE XM2 ........................................... 9 991 9 991 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 164 3,696,429 4 –16,000 168 3,680,429 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND TEST PROCUREMENT ..................................................... 0 0 0 113,857 0 113,857 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [113,857 ] 

412 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

2 M-SHORAD—PROCUREMENT .................................................................................... 0 0 17 103,800 17 103,800 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [17 ] [103,800 ] 

3 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 0 0 138 698,603 138 698,603 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [138 ] [698,603 ] 

4 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I .................................................... 0 0 0 239,237 0 239,237 

Full funding of Iron Dome battery ................................................................... [0 ] [229,900 ] Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [9,337 ] 

5 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 0 0 37 425,900 37 425,900 

THAAD program transfer from MDA ................................................................. [37 ] [425,900 ] 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

6 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 0 0 1,870 193,284 1,870 193,284 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [1,870 ] [193,284 ] 

7 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ........................................................................ 0 0 609 233,353 609 233,353 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [609 ] [233,353 ] 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 0 0 672 138,405 672 138,405 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [672 ] [138,405 ] 

9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 0 0 1,460 114,340 1,460 114,340 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [1,460 ] [114,340 ] 

10 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY AP ................................................................................... 0 0 0 10,500 0 10,500 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [10,500 ] 

11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 0 0 6,489 797,213 6,489 797,213 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [6,489 ] [797,213 ] 

12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 0 0 2,982 27,555 2,982 27,555 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [2,982 ] [27,555 ] 

14 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM ..................................................... 0 0 146 209,842 146 209,842 

413 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [146 ] [209,842 ] 

MODIFICATIONS 

16 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 279,464 0 279,464 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [279,464 ] 

17 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0 85,320 0 85,320 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [85,320 ] 

18 GMLRS MOD .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 5,094 0 5,094 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [5,094 ] 

19 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 81,615 0 81,615 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [81,615 ] 

20 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 14,107 0 14,107 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [14,107 ] 

21 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 3,469 0 3,469 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [3,469 ] 

22 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 0 0 39,019 0 39,019 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [39,019 ] 

23 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 12,483 0 12,483 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [12,483 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

24 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 26,444 0 26,444 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [26,444 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

25 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 10,593 0 10,593 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [10,593 ] 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 0 0 14,420 3,863,497 14,420 3,863,497 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ........................................................... 65 264,040 65 264,040 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

3 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 144,387 0 249,200 0 393,587 

UPL Stryker lethality 30 mm cannon .............................................................. [0 ] [249,200 ] 

414 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

4 STRYKER UPGRADE ................................................................................................... 152 550,000 152 550,000 5 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 638,781 0 –40,000 0 598,781 

Excess to need due to termination of subprogram ........................................ [0 ] [–40,000 ] 

6 M109 FOV MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 0 25,756 0 25,756 

7 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 53 553,425 53 553,425 9 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 2,821 0 2,821 

10 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 6 31,697 6 31,69711 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 4,500 0 4,500 12 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 44 205,517 44 205,517 13 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 348,800 0 348,800 14 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 165 1,752,784 0 –35,000 165 1,717,784 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–35,000 ] 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

16 MULTI-ROLE ANTI-ARMOR ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON S .......................................... 0 19,420 0 19,420 17 GUN AUTOMATIC 30MM M230 .................................................................................. 0 20,000 0 20,000 19 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 14,907 0 14,907 

20 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 0 191 0 191 21 PRECISION SNIPER RIFLE .......................................................................................... 0 7,977 0 7,977 22 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 9,860 0 9,860 23 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 30,331 0 30,331 24 SMALL ARMS—FIRE CONTROL ................................................................................. 0 8,060 0 8,060 25 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 24,007 0 24,007 26 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 0 6,174 0 6,174 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

28 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 0 3,737 0 3,737 29 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 2,367 0 2,367 

415 

30 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 17,595 0 17,595 33 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 8,000 0 8,000 34 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 0 2,426 0 2,426 35 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 6,269 0 6,269 36 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 1,693 0 1,693 37 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 4,327 0 4,327 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

38 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 3,066 0 3,066 39 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 0 2,651 0 2,651 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 485 4,715,566 0 174,200 485 4,889,766 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 68,949 0 68,949 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [68,949 ] 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 114,228 0 114,228 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [114,228 ] 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 17,807 0 17,807 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [17,807 ] 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 63,966 0 63,966 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [63,966 ] 

5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 35,920 0 35,920 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [35,920 ] 

6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 8,990 0 8,990 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [8,990 ] 

7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 68,813 0 68,813 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [68,813 ] 

8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 103,952 0 103,952 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [103,952 ] 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 50,580 0 50,580 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [50,580 ] 

416 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 59,373 0 59,373 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [59,373 ] 

11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 0 0 125,452 0 125,452 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [125,452 ] 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 0 0 171,284 0 171,284 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [171,284 ] 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 0 0 44,675 0 44,675 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [44,675 ] 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 0 0 266,037 0 266,037 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [266,037 ] 

15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 0 0 441 57,434 441 57,434

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [441 ] [57,434 ] 

16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 0 0 271,602 0 271,602 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [271,602 ] 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 0 0 55,433 0 55,433 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [55,433 ] 

ROCKETS 

18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 0 0 74,878 0 74,878 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [74,878 ] 

19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 0 0 175,994 0 175,994 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [175,994 ] 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 7,595 0 7,595 

417 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [7,595 ] 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 0 0 51,651 0 51,651

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [51,651 ] 

22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 0 0 40,592 0 40,592 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [40,592 ] 

23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 18,609 0 18,609 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [18,609 ] 

24 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 16,054 0 16,054 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [16,054 ] 

MISCELLANEOUS 

25 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 0 0 5,261 0 5,261 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [5,261 ] 

26 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 0 0 715 0 715 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [715 ] 

27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 0 0 9,213 0 9,213 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [9,213 ] 

28 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 0 0 10,044 0 10,044 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [10,044 ] 

29 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 0 0 18,492 0 18,492 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [18,492 ] 

30 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES .............................................................................................. 0 0 0 99 0 99 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [99 ] 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

31 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 474,511 0 474,511 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [474,511 ] 

32 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 0 0 202,512 0 202,512 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [202,512 ] 

33 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0 3,833 0 3,833 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [3,833 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 0 0 441 2,694,548 441 2,694,548 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 

418 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 12,993 0 12,993 2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 102,386 0 102,386 

3 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ...................................................................... 0 127,271 0 127,271 4 GROUND MOBILITY VEHICLES (GMV) ........................................................................ 0 37,038 0 37,038 6 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 2,530 996,007 0 –39,500 2,530 956,507 

Army requested realignment ............................................................................ [0 ] [–4,500 ] Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–35,000 ] 

7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) ......................................................................................... 0 10,838 0 10,838 8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 0 72,057 0 72,057 9 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 0 28,048 0 28,048 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 0 9,969 0 9,969 11 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 0 6,280 0 6,280 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 30,841 0 30,841 13 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM ..................................................................... 0 5,734 0 5,734 14 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 45,113 0 45,113 15 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 58,946 0 58,946 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

17 HEAVY ARMORED VEHICLE ........................................................................................ 0 791 0 791 18 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 1,416 0 1,416 19 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 29,891 0 29,891 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

21 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 153,933 0 153,933 22 TACTICAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY MOD IN SVC ....................................................... 0 387,439 0 387,439 23 SITUATION INFORMATION TRANSPORT ....................................................................... 0 46,693 0 46,693 25 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USRDECOM) ................................................................................. 0 5,075 0 5,075 

419 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

28 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 101,189 0 101,189 29 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 77,141 0 77,141 30 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 16,054 0 16,054 

31 ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING .................................................... 0 41,074 0 41,074 32 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 10,515 0 10,515 33 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 0 11,800 0 11,800 34 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ....................................................................... 0 8,609 0 8,609 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

38 COE TACTICAL SERVER INFRASTRUCTURE (TSI) ....................................................... 0 77,533 0 77,533 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

39 HANDHELD MANPACK SMALL FORM FIT (HMS) ......................................................... 0 468,026 0 468,026 40 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 0 23,778 0 23,778 44 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ................................................... 0 10,930 0 10,930 46 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 9,291 0 9,291 47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 0 55,630 0 55,630 48 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 0 16,590 0 16,590 49 ARMY COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS ............................................................... 0 43,457 0 43,457 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

51 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) ...................................................................... 0 10,470 0 10,470 52 DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE ............................................................... 0 3,704 0 3,704 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

53 FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ............................................................................................ 0 1,000 0 1,000 54 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................... 0 3,600 0 3,600 55 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 160,899 0 160,899 56 DEFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 0 61,962 0 61,962 57 INSIDER THREAT PROGRAM—UNIT ACTIVITY MONITO .............................................. 0 756 0 756 58 PERSISTENT CYBER TRAINING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 0 3,000 0 3,000 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

59 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 31,770 0 31,770 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 159,009 0 159,009 

420 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

61 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 0 4,854 0 4,854 62 HOME STATION MISSION COMMAND CENTERS (HSMCC) .......................................... 0 47,174 0 47,174 63 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 297,994 0 297,994 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

66 JTT/CIBS-M (MIP) ....................................................................................................... 0 7,686 0 7,686 68 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 180,350 0 180,350 70 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 17,368 0 17,368 71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 59,052 0 59,052 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

77 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 5,400 0 5,400 78 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 0 7,568 0 7,568 79 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) (MIP) ......................................................................................... 0 8,953 0 8,953 81 MULTI-FUNCTION ELECTRONIC WARFARE (MFEW) SYST ........................................... 0 6,420 0 6,420 83 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 501 0 501 84 CI MODERNIZATION (MIP) ......................................................................................... 0 121 0 121 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

85 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 115,210 0 115,210 86 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 236,604 0 236,604 88 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 22,623 0 22,623 90 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 29,127 0 29,127 91 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 120,883 0 120,883 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 265,667 0 265,667 95 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 0 69,720 0 69,720 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 6,044 0 6,044 97 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 3,268 0 3,268 98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 13,199 0 13,199 

421 

99 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS MODIFICATIONS .................................................. 0 10,000 0 10,000 

100 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 16,416 13 62,500 13 78,916 

UPL Retrofits systems with GaN tech for ER .................................................. [13 ] [62,500 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 13,197 0 13,197 

103 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 24,730 0 24,730 104 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND SYSTEM ............................................................................. 0 29,629 0 29,629 105 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 6,774 0 6,774 106 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 24,448 0 24,448 107 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 260 0 260 108 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 17,962 0 17,962 109 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 18,674 0 –18,674 0 0 

Poor business process reengineering .............................................................. [0 ] [–18,674 ] 

110 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 0 11,000 0 11,000 111 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ...................................................................... 0 7,317 0 7,317 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

112 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 14,578 0 14,578 113 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 139,342 0 8,000 0 147,342 

JIOCEUR at RAF Molesworth ............................................................................ [0 ] [8,000 ] 

114 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 15,802 0 15,802 115 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 67,610 0 67,610 116 CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 15,000 0 –15,000 0 0 

Program duplication ........................................................................................ [0 ] [–15,000 ] 

117 CSS COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 24,700 0 24,700 

118 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 27,879 0 27,879 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

120 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

122 BCT EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................ 0 22,302 0 22,302 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,710 0 8,200 0 11,910 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [8,200 ] 

422 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

126 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 25,828 0 25,828 

127 SMOKE & OBSCURANT FAMILY: SOF (NON AAO ITEM) ............................................. 0 5,050 0 5,050 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

128 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 59,821 0 59,821 129 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 0 57,661 0 57,661 130 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL SET ..................................................................................... 0 17,966 0 17,966 131 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 43,155 0 43,155 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

132 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD DETECTION SYS-HST ........................................... 0 7,570 0 7,570 133 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 37,025 0 37,025 135 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 0 83,082 0 83,082 136 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 137 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 23,115 0 23,115 138 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 0 101,056 0 12,800 0 113,856 

Army requested realignment ............................................................................ [0 ] [12,800 ] 

140 RENDER SAFE SETS KITS OUTFITS ............................................................................ 0 18,684 0 18,684 142 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 8,245 0 8,245 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

143 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 7,336 0 7,336 

145 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 4,281 0 4,281 146 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 111,955 0 111,955 147 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER .......................................................................................... 0 31,364 0 31,364 149 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 1,673 0 1,673 150 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 43,622 0 43,622 151 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 11,451 0 11,451 

423 

152 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................... 0 5,167 0 5,167 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

154 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 0 74,867 0 74,867 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

155 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 68,225 0 68,225 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

156 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 55,053 0 55,053 157 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 5,608 0 5,608 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

161 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ............................................................................................ 0 500 0 500 162 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ......................................................................................... 0 4,835 0 4,835 

163 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 0 23,936 0 23,936 164 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 27,188 0 27,188 166 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 0 34,790 0 34,790 167 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 4,381 0 4,381 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

168 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 35,194 0 35,194 169 MANEUVER SUPPORT VESSEL (MSV) ........................................................................ 0 14,185 0 14,185 170 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 6,920 0 6,920 

GENERATORS 

171 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 58,566 0 58,566 172 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 0 14,814 0 14,814 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 14,864 0 14,864 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

174 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 0 123,411 0 123,411 175 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 220,707 0 220,707 

176 SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT (STE) .............................................................. 0 20,749 0 20,749 178 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 4,840 0 4,840 179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 15,463 0 15,463 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

180 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 3,030 0 3,030 

424 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

181 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 76,980 0 76,980 182 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 16,415 0 16,415 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

184 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 9,877 0 9,877 185 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 82,158 0 82,158 186 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 15,340 0 15,340 187 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 50,458 0 50,458 189 BUILDING, PRE-FAB, RELOCATABLE .......................................................................... 0 14,400 0 14,400 190 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 9,821 0 9,821 

OPA2 

192 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 0 9,757 0 9,757 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 2,530 7,443,101 13 18,326 2,543 7,461,427 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

1 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 24 1,748,934 24 1,748,934 

2 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET AP ............................................................................. 0 55,128 0 55,128 3 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 20 2,272,301 2 215,000 22 2,487,301 

UPL USMC additional quantities ..................................................................... [2 ] [215,000 ] 

4 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV AP ................................................................................... 0 339,053 0 339,053 

5 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 10 1,342,035 2 249,100 12 1,591,135 

UPL USMC additional quantities ..................................................................... [2 ] [249,100 ] 

6 JSF STOVL AP ............................................................................................................ 0 291,804 0 291,804 

7 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ............................................................................................... 6 807,876 6 807,876 8 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) AP .......................................................................................... 0 215,014 0 215,014 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 10 966,666 10 966,666 

425 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) AP ........................................................................................... 0 27,104 0 27,104 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 0 62,003 0 62,003 13 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 0 894 0 894 14 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 6 1,206,701 6 1,206,701 16 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 4 744,484 4 744,484 17 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE AP ............................................................................................ 0 190,204 0 190,204 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

19 ADVANCED HELICOPTER TRAINING SYSTEM .............................................................. 32 261,160 32 261,160 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

20 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 3 240,840 3 240,840 

21 KC–130J AP ............................................................................................................... 0 66,061 0 66,061 22 F–5 ............................................................................................................................ 22 39,676 –22 –39,676 0 0 

Program cancellation ....................................................................................... [–22 ] [–39,676 ] 

23 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 2 473,134 2 473,134 

24 MQ–4 TRITON AP ...................................................................................................... 0 20,139 0 20,139 25 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 44,957 0 44,957 26 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 43,819 0 43,819 28 VH–92A EXECUTIVE HELO ......................................................................................... 6 658,067 6 658,067 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

29 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 44,470 0 44,470 

30 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 39,472 0 39,472 31 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 3,415 0 3,415 32 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 1,207,089 0 1,207,089 33 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 68,385 0 68,385 34 MH–60 SERIES .......................................................................................................... 0 149,797 0 149,797 35 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 114,059 0 114,059 36 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 8,655 0 8,655 38 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 117,059 0 117,059 39 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 5,616 0 5,616 40 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 15,747 0 15,747 41 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 122,671 0 122,671 42 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 509 0 509 

426 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

43 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 8,767 0 8,767 44 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 169,827 0 169,827 45 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 8,933 0 8,933 47 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 186,022 0 186,022 48 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 16,136 0 16,136 49 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 21,824 0 21,824 50 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ................................................................................. 0 39,762 0 39,76251 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 162,839 0 162,839 52 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 102,107 0 102,107 53 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 2,100 0 2,100 54 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 41,437 0 41,437 55 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 107,539 0 107,539 56 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 26,536 0 26,536 57 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 34,686 0 34,686 58 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 325,367 0 325,36759 NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ............................................................................ 0 6,223 0 6,223 60 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 65,585 0 65,585 61 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 15,358 0 15,358 62 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 165,016 0 165,016 63 MQ–4 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 27,994 0 27,994 64 RQ–21 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 66,282 0 66,282 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

67 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 2,166,788 1 68,300 1 2,235,088 

F–35B spares ................................................................................................... [0 ] [14,900 ] F–35C spares ................................................................................................... [0 ] [24,600 ] UPL F–35B engine ........................................................................................... [1 ] [28,800 ] 

427 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

68 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 491,025 0 491,025 69 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 71,335 0 71,335

70 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 41,086 0 41,086 72 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 135,740 0 135,740 73 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 892 0 892 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 145 18,522,204 –17 492,724 128 19,014,928 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0 1,177,251 0 1,177,251 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [1,177,251 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 0 0 7,142 0 7,142 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [7,142 ] 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 0 0 90 330,430 90 330,430 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [90 ] [386,730 ] Unjustified tooling and facilitization costs ..................................................... [0 ] [–56,300 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 0 0 169 224,502 169 224,502 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [169 ] [224,502 ] 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 0 0 292 119,456 292 119,456 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [292 ] [119,456 ] 

7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 0 0 125 404,523 125 404,523 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [125 ] [404,523 ] 

8 STANDARD MISSILE AP .............................................................................................. 0 0 0 96,085 0 96,085 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [96,085 ] 

9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ........................................................................................ 0 0 750 118,466 750 118,466 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [750 ] [118,466 ] 

10 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 120 106,765 120 106,765 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [120 ] [106,765 ] 

428 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

12 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 0 0 29 1,525 29 1,525 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [29 ] [1,525 ] 

15 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0 145,880 0 145,880 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [145,880 ] 

16 DRONES AND DECOYS ............................................................................................... 0 0 30 20,000 30 20,000 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [30 ] [20,000 ] 

17 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 0 0 3,388 0 3,388 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [3,388 ] 

18 LRASM ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 48 143,200 48 143,200 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [48 ] [143,200 ] 

19 LCS OTH MISSILE ...................................................................................................... 0 0 8 18,137 8 18,137 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [18 ] [38,137 ] Unjustified accelerated acquisition strategy ................................................... [–10 ] [–20,000 ] 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

20 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 60 128,059 60 128,059 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [60 ] [128,059 ] 

21 HARPOON MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0 25,447 0 25,447 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [25,447 ] 

22 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 183,740 0 183,740 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [183,740 ] 

23 STANDARD MISSILES MODS ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 22,500 0 22,500 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [22,500 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

24 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 0 0 1,958 0 1,958 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [1,958 ] 

25 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 0 0 67,380 0 67,380 

429 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [67,380 ] 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

27 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 0 0 109,427 0 109,427 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [109,427 ] 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

28 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 5,561 0 5,561 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [5,561 ] 

29 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 0 0 71 130,000 71 130,000 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [58 ] [114,000 ] UPL additional quantites ................................................................................. [13 ] [16,000 ] 

30 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 0 0 15,095 0 15,095 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [15,095 ] 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

31 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 0 0 119,453 0 119,453 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [119,453 ] 

32 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 0 0 39,508 0 39,508 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [39,508 ] 

33 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 0 0 5,183 0 5,183 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [5,183 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

34 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 0 0 79,028 0 79,028 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [79,028 ] 

35 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 0 0 3,890 0 3,890 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [3,890 ] 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

36 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 0 0 3,803 0 3,803 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [3,803 ] 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

37 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 0 0 14,797 0 14,797 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [14,797 ] 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

38 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 0 0 44,126 0 44,126 

430 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [44,126 ] 

39 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 0 0 44,980 0 44,980 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [44,980 ] 

40 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 0 0 66,376 0 66,376 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [66,376 ] 

41 LCS MODULE WEAPONS ............................................................................................ 0 0 120 14,585 120 14,585 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [120 ] [14,585 ] 

43 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 0 0 7,160 0 7,160 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [7,160 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

45 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 126,138 0 126,138 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [126,138 ] 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 0 0 1,912 4,174,944 1,912 4,174,944 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 36,028 0 36,028 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [36,028 ] 

2 JDAM .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 2,844 70,413 2,844 70,413 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [2,844 ] [70,413 ] 

3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 0 0 31,756 0 31,756 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [31,756 ] 

4 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 4,793 0 4,793 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [4,793 ] 

5 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0 34,708 0 34,708 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [34,708 ] 

431 

6 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 0 0 45,738 0 45,738 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [45,738 ] 

7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 0 0 77,301 0 77,301 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [77,301 ] 

8 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 7,262 0 7,262 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [7,262 ] 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 0 0 22,594 0 22,594 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [22,594 ] 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 0 0 37,193 0 37,193 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [37,193 ] 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 0 0 39,491 0 39,491 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [39,491 ] 

12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 0 0 47,896 0 47,896 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [47,896 ] 

13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 0 0 10,621 0 10,621 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [10,621 ] 

15 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 0 0 2,386 0 2,386 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [2,386 ] 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

16 MORTARS ................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 55,543 0 55,543 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [55,543 ] 

17 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................... 0 0 0 131,765 0 131,765 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [131,765 ] 

18 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ............................................................................ 0 0 0 78,056 0 78,056

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [78,056 ] 

19 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS .................................................................................. 0 0 0 40,048 0 40,048 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [40,048 ] 

20 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 14,325 0 14,325 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [14,325 ] 

21 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS .............................................................................................. 0 0 0 188,876 0 188,876 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [188,876 ] 

22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 0 0 4,521 0 4,521 

432 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [4,521 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 0 0 2,844 981,314 2,844 981,314 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SHIPS 

1 OHIO REPLACEMENT SUBMARINE AP ........................................................................ 0 1,698,907 0 125,000 0 1,823,907 

Submarine industrial base expansion ............................................................. [0 ] [125,000 ] 

OTHER WARSHIPS 

2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 1 2,347,000 –1 0 2,347,000 

CVN–81 authorized in NDAA 2019 .................................................................. [–1 ] 

3 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 3 7,155,946 –1 –2,464,000 2 4,691,946 

Restore VPM on SSN–804 ................................................................................ [0 ] [522,100 ] SSN–812 full funding early to need ............................................................... [–1 ] [–2,986,100 ] 

4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE AP ............................................................................... 0 2,769,552 0 1,500,000 0 4,269,552 

Future Virginia-class submarine(s) with VPM ................................................ [0 ] [1,500,000 ] 

5 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 1 647,926 0 –50,000 1 597,926 

CVN–74 RCOH unjustified cost growth ........................................................... [0 ] [–50,000 ] 

6 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS AP ............................................................................... 0 0 0 16,900 0 16,900 

Restore CVN–75 RCOH .................................................................................... [0 ] [16,900 ] 

7 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 155,944 0 155,944 

8 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 3 5,099,295 0 –20,000 3 5,079,295 

Available prior year funds ............................................................................... [0 ] [–20,000 ] 

9 DDG–51 AP ................................................................................................................ 0 224,028 0 260,000 0 484,028 

Accelerate LLTM for FY21 Flight III destroyers ................................................ [0 ] [260,000 ] 

11 FFG-FRIGATE .............................................................................................................. 1 1,281,177 1 1,281,177 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

433 

12 LPD FLIGHT II ............................................................................................................ 0 0 1 525,000 1 525,000 

LPD–31 program increase ............................................................................... [1 ] [277,900 ] Transfer from SCN line 13 .............................................................................. [0 ] [247,100 ] 

13 LPD FLIGHT II AP ....................................................................................................... 0 247,100 0 –247,100 0 0 

Transfer to SCN line 12 ................................................................................... [0 ] [–247,100 ] 

15 LHA REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 0 0 1 650,000 1 650,000 

LHA–9 program increase ................................................................................. [1 ] [650,000 ] 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

18 TAO FLEET OILER ...................................................................................................... 2 981,215 2 981,215 

19 TAO FLEET OILER AP ................................................................................................. 0 73,000 0 73,000 20 TOWING, SALVAGE, AND RESCUE SHIP (ATS) ........................................................... 2 150,282 2 150,282 22 LCU 1700 .................................................................................................................. 4 85,670 4 85,670 23 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 754,679 0 –50,000 0 704,679 

Early to need and unjustified cost growth ..................................................... [0 ] [–50,000 ] 

25 SERVICE CRAFT ......................................................................................................... 0 56,289 0 25,500 0 81,789 

Accelerate YP–703 Flight II ............................................................................. [0 ] [25,500 ] 

28 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 55,700 0 49,000 0 104,700 

UPL EPF–14 conversion ................................................................................... [0 ] [49,000 ] 

29 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR AP .............................................................................. 0 0 0 40,400 0 40,400 

Program increase ............................................................................................. [0 ] [40,400 ] 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ....................................................... 17 23,783,710 0 360,700 17 24,144,410 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 SURFACE POWER EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 14,490 0 14,490 

GENERATORS 

2 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 31,583 0 19,000 0 50,583 

UPL DDG–51 class HM&E upgrades ............................................................... [0 ] [19,000 ] 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

3 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 77,404 0 77,404 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

4 SUB PERISCOPE, IMAGING AND SUPT EQUIP PROG ................................................. 0 160,803 0 160,803 

434 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 566,140 0 566,140 6 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 18,223 0 18,223 7 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,086 0 2,086 8 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ...................................................................................................... 0 95,651 0 95,651 9 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 23,910 0 23,910 

10 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 44,895 0 44,895 11 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 28,465 0 28,465 12 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 19,426 0 19,426 13 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 26,290 0 26,290 14 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 46,945 0 46,945 15 DDG 1000 CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 0 9,930 0 9,930 16 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 14,331 0 14,331 17 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 2,909 0 2,909 18 CG MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 0 193,990 0 193,990 19 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,392 0 3,392 20 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 71,240 0 11,000 0 82,240 

Program increase for four ExMCM companies ................................................ [0 ] [11,000 ] 

21 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 102,543 0 102,543 

22 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 2,961 0 2,961 23 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 6,635 0 6,635 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

24 REACTOR POWER UNITS ............................................................................................ 0 5,340 0 5,340 25 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 465,726 0 465,726 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

26 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 11,854 0 11,854 

SMALL BOATS 

435 

27 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 79,102 0 79,102 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

28 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 202,238 0 202,238 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

29 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 51,553 0 51,553 30 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 197,129 0 –129,800 0 67,329 

Procurement ahead of satisfactory testing ..................................................... [0 ] [–129,800 ] 

31 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 27,754 0 27,754

32 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 26,566 0 26,56633 LCS IN-SERVICE MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 84,972 0 84,972 34 SMALL & MEDIUM UUV ............................................................................................. 0 40,547 0 –29,900 0 10,647 

Knifefish procurement ahead of satisfactory testing ..................................... [0 ] [–29,900 ] 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

35 LSD MIDLIFE & MODERNIZATION .............................................................................. 0 40,269 0 40,269 

SHIP SONARS 

36 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 26,195 0 26,195 

37 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 125,237 0 125,237 38 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 366,968 0 366,968 39 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 8,967 0 8,967 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

40 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 23,545 0 23,545 41 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 12,439 0 12,439 42 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 128,441 0 128,441 43 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 21,923 0 21,923 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

44 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 420,154 0 –62,000 0 358,154 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–62,000 ] 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

45 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 194,758 0 8,000 0 202,758 

UPL SSEE expansion on Flight I DDGs ............................................................ [0 ] [8,000 ] 

46 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 5,368 0 5,368 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

436 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

47 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 35,128 0 35,128 48 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 15,154 0 15,154 49 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 52,753 0 52,753 50 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 3,390 0 3,390 51 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 19,448 0 19,448 52 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 0 8,730 0 8,730 53 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 32,674 0 32,674 54 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 2,617 0 2,617 55 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 7,973 0 7,973 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

56 ASHORE ATC EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 72,406 0 72,406 57 AFLOAT ATC EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................... 0 67,410 0 67,410 58 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 26,059 0 26,059 59 JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM ( ............................................ 0 92,695 0 92,695 60 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 15,296 0 15,296 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

61 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 36,226 0 36,226 62 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 21,788 0 21,788 63 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 426,654 0 426,654 64 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 6,450 0 6,450 65 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 52,713 0 52,713 66 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 13,028 0 13,028 67 MASF .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,193 0 5,193 68 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 6,028 0 6,028 69 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 4,209 0 4,209 70 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 168,436 0 –23,800 0 144,636 

437 

NGSSR early to need ........................................................................................ [0 ] [–23,800 ] 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

71 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 55,853 0 55,853 72 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 137,861 0 137,861 73 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 35,093 0 35,093 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

74 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 50,833 0 50,833 75 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 69,643 0 69,643 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

76 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 45,841 0 45,841 77 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 88,021 0 88,021 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

78 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 4,293 0 4,293 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

79 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 166,540 0 166,540 80 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 968 0 968 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

81 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 13,090 0 13,090 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

83 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 61,370 0 61,370 

SONOBUOYS 

85 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 260,644 0 50,000 0 310,644 

UPL Sonobuoy increase .................................................................................... [0 ] [50,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

86 MINOTAUR .................................................................................................................. 0 5,000 0 5,000 

87 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 101,843 0 101,843 88 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 145,601 0 145,60189 ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ......................................................................... 0 4,725 0 4,725 90 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 14,687 0 14,687 92 LEGACY AIRBORNE MCM ........................................................................................... 0 19,250 0 19,250 93 LAMPS EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 792 0 792 94 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 55,415 0 55,415 

438 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

95 UMCS-UNMAN CARRIER AVIATION(UCA)MISSION CNTRL .......................................... 0 32,668 0 32,668 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

96 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,451 0 5,451 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

97 HARPOON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 1,100 0 1,100 98 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 228,104 0 228,104 99 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 78,593 0 78,593 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

100 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 280,510 0 280,510 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

101 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 148,547 0 148,547 102 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 21,130 0 21,130 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

103 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 15,244 0 15,244 104 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,071 0 5,071

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

105 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM .......................................................................... 0 41,962 0 41,962 106 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ....................................................................... 0 75,057 0 75,057 107 SURFACE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 233,175 0 233,175 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 4,562 0 4,562 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 10,974 0 10,974 

110 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 43,191 0 43,191 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 21,142 0 21,142 112 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 33,432 0 33,432 114 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,633 0 2,633 

439 

115 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 53,467 0 53,467 116 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,173 0 1,173 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 0 16,730 0 16,730 118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,389 0 5,389 119 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 654,674 0 654,674 

TRAINING DEVICES 

120 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 3,633 0 3,633 121 TRAINING AND EDUCATION EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 97,636 0 97,636 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

122 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 66,102 0 –6,323 0 59,779 

Program duplication ........................................................................................ [0 ] [–6,323 ] 

123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 3,633 0 3,633 125 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 6,097 0 6,097 126 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 16,905 0 16,905 127 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 30,146 0 30,146 

128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 21,986 0 21,986 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 160,046 0 160,046 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 56,899 0 56,899 

OTHER 

133 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 122,832 0 122,832 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 16,346 0 16,346 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

134 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 375,608 0 375,608 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 9,652,956 0 –163,823 0 9,489,133 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 39,495 0 39,495 

2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE 1.1 .......................................................................... 56 317,935 56 317,935 3 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 60,734 0 60,734 

440 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 25,065 0 25,065 5 ARTILLERY WEAPONS SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 100,002 0 100,002

6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 31,945 0 31,945 

OTHER SUPPORT 

7 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 22,760 0 22,760 

GUIDED MISSILES 

8 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 175,998 0 175,998

9 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-JAVELIN .................................................................................. 97 20,207 97 20,207 

10 FAMILY ANTI-ARMOR WEAPON SYSTEMS (FOAAWS) .................................................. 0 21,913 0 21,913 11 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-TOW ........................................................................................ 0 60,501 0 60,501 12 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 210 29,062 210 29,062 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

13 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 37,203 0 37,203 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

14 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 55,156 0 55,156

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

15 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 4,945 0 4,945 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

16 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 112,124 0 112,124 17 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 17,408 0 17,408

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

18 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 329 0 329 

19 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ....................................................... 8 273,022 8 273,022 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

21 GCSS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 4,484 0 4,484 

441 

22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 35,488 0 35,488 23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 56,896 0 56,896 25 UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS (INTEL) ............................................................................ 0 34,711 0 34,711 26 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 32,562 0 32,562 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

30 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 114,901 0 114,901 31 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 51,094 0 51,094 32 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 108,897 0 108,897 

33 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 227,320 0 227,320 34 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 31,685 0 31,685 35 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 21,140 0 21,140 36 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 0 27,632 0 27,632 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 5,535 0 5,535 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

37 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 28,913 0 28,913 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

38 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 19,234 0 19,234 39 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 1,398 558,107 1,398 558,107 

40 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 2,693 0 2,693 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

41 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 495 0 495 42 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 52 0 52 43 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 22,441 0 22,441 44 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 7,101 0 7,101 45 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 44,700 0 44,700 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

46 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 15,404 0 15,404 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

47 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 2,898 0 2,898

48 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 149,567 0 149,567 49 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 35,622 0 35,622 

442 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

50 ULTRA-LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (ULTV) ................................................................... 0 647 0 647 

OTHER SUPPORT 

51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 10,956 0 10,956 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

52 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 33,470 0 33,470 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 1,769 3,090,449 0 0 1,769 3,090,449 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 48 4,274,359 12 1,090,000 60 5,364,359 

UPL additional quantities ................................................................................ [12 ] [1,090,000 ] 

2 F–35 AP ..................................................................................................................... 0 655,500 0 156,000 0 811,500 

UPL increase .................................................................................................... [0 ] [156,000 ]

3 F–15E ........................................................................................................................ 8 1,050,000 0 –162,000 8 888,000 

NRE cost on a non-developmental A/C ........................................................... [0 ] [–162,000 ] 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

5 KC–46A MDAP ........................................................................................................... 12 2,234,529 3 471,000 15 2,705,529 

UPL additional quantities ................................................................................ [3 ] [471,000 ] 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

6 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,156 0 12,156 

8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 8 871,207 8 871,207 9 MC–130J AP .............................................................................................................. 0 40,000 0 40,000 

HELICOPTERS 

10 COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER ................................................................................. 12 884,235 12 884,235 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

11 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 2 161,000 2 161,000 

443 

12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 4 2,767 4 2,767 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

14 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 37 130,837 37 130,837 

15 COMPASS CALL .......................................................................................................... 1 114,095 1 114,095 17 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 3 189,205 3 189,205 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

19 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 9,582 0 9,582 20 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 22,111 0 22,111 21 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 69,648 0 69,648 22 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 43,758 0 43,758 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

23 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 132,069 0 132,069 24 E–11 BACN/HAG ........................................................................................................ 0 70,027 0 70,027 25 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 481,073 0 –153,000 0 328,073 

ADCP unnecessary due to F–15X .................................................................... [0 ] [–75,100 ] IFF unnecessary due to F–15X ........................................................................ [0 ] [–29,600 ] Longerons unnecessary due to F–15X ............................................................. [0 ] [–24,600 ] Radar unnecessary due to F–15X ................................................................... [0 ] [–23,700 ] 

26 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 234,782 30 75,000 30 309,782 

Additional radars ............................................................................................. [30 ] [75,000 ] 

28 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 323,597 0 323,597 30 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 343,590 0 343,590 31 F–15 EPAW ................................................................................................................ 0 149,047 0 –67,200 0 81,847 

Not required because of F–15X ....................................................................... [0 ] [–67,200 ] 

32 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 0 20,213 0 20,213 

33 KC–46A MDAP ........................................................................................................... 0 10,213 0 10,213 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

34 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 73,550 0 73,550 36 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 60,244 0 60,244 37 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 216 0 216 38 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 11,511 0 11,511 39 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 435 0 435 

444 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

40 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 138 0 138 

41 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 11,826 0 11,826 42 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 26,787 0 26,787 43 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 37,341 0 37,341 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

44 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 86,896 0 86,896 

45 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 2,108 0 2,108 46 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,021 0 3,021 47 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 48,624 0 48,624 48 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 256 0 256 49 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 52,066 0 52,066 50 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 141,686 0 141,686 51 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 124,491 0 124,491 53 COMPASS CALL .......................................................................................................... 0 110,754 0 110,754 54 COMBAT FLIGHT INSPECTION—CFIN ........................................................................ 0 508 0 508 55 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 227,673 0 227,673 56 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 216,299 0 216,299 57 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 58,477 0 58,477 58 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 28,778 0 30,000 0 58,778 

SATCOM radios ................................................................................................. [0 ] [30,000 ] 

59 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CNTRL SYS (AWACS) 40/45 ............................................ 0 36,000 0 36,000 60 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 7,910 0 7,910 61 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 3,817 0 3,817 62 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 20,879 0 20,879 63 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 1,704 0 1,704 

445 

64 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 51,482 0 51,482 65 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 50,098 0 50,098 66 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 383,594 0 383,594 68 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 65,348 0 65,348 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

69 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 708,230 0 262,000 0 970,230 

F–35 spares ..................................................................................................... [0 ] [96,000 ] KC–46 spares ................................................................................................... [0 ] [141,000 ] RQ–4 ................................................................................................................ [0 ] [25,000 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

72 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 84,938 0 84,938 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

73 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,403 0 1,403 74 B–2B ......................................................................................................................... 0 42,234 0 42,234 75 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 4,641 0 4,641 76 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 124,805 0 124,805 79 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 2,589 0 2,589 81 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 15,348 0 15,348 84 RQ–4 POST PRODUCTION CHARGES ......................................................................... 0 47,246 0 47,246 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

86 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 17,705 0 17,705

WAR CONSUMABLES 

87 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 32,102 0 32,102 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

88 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,194,728 0 1,194,728 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 34,193 0 34,193 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 135 16,784,279 45 1,701,800 180 18,486,079 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 55,888 0 55,888 

446 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL 

2 REPLAC EQUIP & WAR CONSUMABLES ..................................................................... 0 9,100 0 9,100 3 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MUNITION ............................................................................. 60 15,000 60 15,000 4 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 411 482,525 411 482,525 6 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 355 160,408 355 160,408 

7 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 220 332,250 220 332,250 8 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 1,531 118,860 1,531 118,860 9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 7,078 275,438 7,078 275,438 

10 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ........................................................................................ 1,175 212,434 1,175 212,434 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

11 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 801 0 801 

CLASS IV 

12 ICBM FUZE MOD ....................................................................................................... 6 5,000 6 5,000 

13 ICBM FUZE MOD AP .................................................................................................. 0 14,497 0 14,497 14 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 50,831 0 8,900 0 59,731 

Air Force requested transfer ............................................................................ [0 ] [8,900 ] 

15 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 294 0 294

16 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 77,387 0 –8,900 0 68,487 

Air Force requested transfer ............................................................................ [0 ] [–8,900 ] 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

18 MSL SPRS/REPAIR PARTS (INITIAL) ........................................................................... 0 1,910 0 1,910 19 REPLEN SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................ 0 82,490 0 82,490 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

23 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 144,553 0 144,553 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 849,521 0 849,521 

447 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 10,836 2,889,187 0 0 10,836 2,889,187 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

1 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 31,894 0 31,894 

2 AF SATELLITE COMM SYSTEM ................................................................................... 0 56,298 0 56,298 4 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 0 5,700 0 5,700 5 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 34,020 0 34,020 7 GENERAL INFORMATION TECH—SPACE .................................................................... 0 3,244 0 3,244 8 GPSIII FOLLOW ON ..................................................................................................... 1 414,625 1 414,625 9 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 0 31,466 0 31,466 

12 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 32,031 0 32,031 13 MILSATCOM ................................................................................................................ 0 11,096 0 11,096 15 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 4 1,237,635 4 1,237,635 16 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 233,952 0 233,952 17 NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 0 7,432 0 7,432 18 ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM ...................................................................... 0 11,473 0 11,473 19 SPACE FENCE ............................................................................................................ 0 71,784 0 71,784 20 SPACE MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 106,330 0 106,330 21 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 118,140 0 118,140 

SPARES 

22 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 7,263 0 7,263 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 5 2,414,383 0 0 5 2,414,383 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 133,268 0 133,268 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [133,268 ] 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 140,449 0 140,449 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [140,449 ] 

BOMBS 

448 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0 29,313 0 29,313 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [29,313 ] 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 85,885 0 85,885 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [85,885 ] 

6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 0 0 37,000 1,066,224 37,000 1,066,224 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [37,000 ] [1,066,224 ] 

7 B61 ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 533 80,773 533 80,773 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [533 ] [80,773 ] 

OTHER ITEMS 

9 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 47,069 0 47,069 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [47,069 ] 

10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 0 0 6,133 0 6,133 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [6,133 ] 

11 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 533 0 533 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [533 ] 

12 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 1,291 0 1,291 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [1,291 ] 

13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5,000,000 .................................................................................. 0 0 0 1,677 0 1,677 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [1,677 ] 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 36,116 0 36,116 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [36,116 ] 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 1,734 0 1,734 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [1,734 ] 

SMALL ARMS 

449 

17 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 37,496 0 37,496 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [37,496 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 0 0 37,533 1,667,961 37,533 1,667,961 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 15,238 0 15,238 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 34,616 0 34,616 

3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 1,040 0 1,040 4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 23,133 0 23,133 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 0 32,027 0 32,0276 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 1,315 0 1,315 7 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................... 0 14,593 0 14,593

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 28,604 0 28,604 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

9 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES .............................................................................. 0 21,848 0 21,848 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU ............................................................ 0 2,925 0 2,925 11 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ................................................................. 0 55,776 0 55,776 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

13 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 91,461 0 91,461 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

14 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & ARCHITECTURES ...................................................... 0 11,386 0 11,386 15 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 7,619 0 7,619 16 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 35,558 0 35,558 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

17 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 17,939 0 17,939 19 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 3,063 0 3,063 21 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 31,447 0 31,447 

450 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

22 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 5,090 0 5,090 23 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 10,145 0 10,145 24 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 14,508 0 14,50826 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 9,901 0 9,901 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 26,933 0 26,933 28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 2,756 0 2,756 29 BATTLEFIELD AIRBORNE CONTROL NODE (BACN) ..................................................... 0 48,478 0 48,478 30 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 21,186 0 21,186 31 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 178,361 0 178,361 32 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 233,993 4 28,000 4 261,993 

Joint threat emitters ........................................................................................ [4 ] [28,000 ] 

33 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 132,648 0 132,648 34 WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE (WAS) ............................................................................ 0 80,818 0 80,818 35 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 25,036 0 25,036 

36 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM ............................................................. 0 20,900 0 –20,900 0 0 

Poor agile implementation ............................................................................... [0 ] [–20,900 ] 

37 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 11,226 0 11,226 38 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING & MGT SYS ..................................................... 0 1,905 0 1,905 39 MAINTENANCE REPAIR & OVERHAUL INITIATIVE ....................................................... 0 1,912 0 1,912 40 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 6,337 0 6,337 41 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ............................................................... 0 33,243 0 33,243 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

43 BASE INFORMATION TRANSPT INFRAST (BITI) WIRED ............................................... 0 69,530 0 69,530 44 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 147,063 0 147,063 45 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 6,505 0 6,505 

451 

46 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 20,190 0 20,190 47 USSTRATCOM ............................................................................................................. 0 11,244 0 11,244 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

48 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 143,757 0 143,757 

50 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 15,402 0 15,402 51 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 3,211 0 3,211 52 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 43,123 0 43,123 

MODIFICATIONS 

53 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 14,500 0 14,500 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

54 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 0 50,634 0 50,634 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

55 POWER CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 11,000 0 11,000 56 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 11,901 0 11,901 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

57 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 23,963 0 23,963 58 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 34,124 0 34,124 59 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 26,439 0 26,439 

60 FUELS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (FSE) ........................................................................... 0 24,255 0 24,255 61 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................... 0 38,986 0 38,986 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

63 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 26,716 0 26,716 64 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 116,055 0 116,055 66 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 835,148 0 835,148 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 17,637,807 0 655,000 0 18,292,807 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [655,000 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

67 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 81,340 0 81,340 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 20,687,857 4 662,100 4 21,349,957 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE 

452 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 2,432 0 2,432 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 5,030 0 5,030 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 3,318 0 1,400 0 4,718 

Sharkseer transfer ........................................................................................... [0 ] [1,400 ] 

9 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 25,103 0 25,103 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 26,416 0 26,416 12 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 17,574 0 17,574 14 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 45,079 0 45,079 15 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 78,669 0 78,669 16 JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) .............................................................. 0 88,000 0 88,000 17 JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER ......................................................................................... 0 107,907 0 107,907 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 8,122 0 8,122 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 10,961 0 10,961 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

21 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 1,320 0 1,320 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DPAA 

22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DPAA ......................................................................................... 32 1,504 32 1,504 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

23 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 496 0 496 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

25 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 211 0 211 

453 

26 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 11,521 0 11,521 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

28 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 37 425,863 –37 –425,863 0 0 

THAAD program transfer to Army .................................................................... [–37 ] [–425,863 ] 

29 GROUND BASED MIDCOURSE .................................................................................... 0 9,471 0 9,471 31 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 37 600,773 37 600,773 

32 AEGIS BMD AP ........................................................................................................... 0 96,995 0 96,995 33 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 10,046 0 10,046 34 ARROW 3 UPPER TIER SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 1 55,000 1 55,000 35 SHORT RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (SRBMD) ............................................. 1 50,000 1 50,000 36 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 1 25,659 1 25,659 37 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 1 95,000 1 95,000 38 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE .................................................................. 36 124,986 36 124,986 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

44 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 1,533 0 –1,400 0 133 

Sharkseer transfer ........................................................................................... [0 ] [–1,400 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 0 43,705 0 43,705 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

46 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 6,905 0 6,905 

47 MAJOR EQUIPMENT—TJS CYBER .............................................................................. 0 1,458 0 1,458 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

49 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 507 0 507 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 584,366 0 5,000 0 589,366 

Transfer back to base funding ........................................................................ [0 ] [5,000 ] 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

53 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 172,020 0 172,020 54 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 15,208 0 15,208 

55 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 32,310 0 32,310 56 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 10,898 0 10,898 57 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 173,812 0 173,812 

454 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

58 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 17,256 0 17,256 59 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 5,338 0 5,338 60 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 232,930 0 232,930 61 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 173,419 0 –8,800 0 164,619 

RFCM schedule delay ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–8,800 ] 

62 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 15,582 0 15,582 

SHIPBUILDING 

63 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 58,991 0 58,991 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

64 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 279,992 0 279,992 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

65 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 100,641 0 100,641 

66 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 12,522 0 12,522 67 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 103,910 0 103,910 68 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 33,088 0 33,088 69 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 63,467 0 63,467 70 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 77,832 0 77,832 71 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 298,480 0 298,480 72 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,702 0 19,702 73 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 4,787 0 4,787 74 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 8,175 0 8,175 75 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 282,532 0 282,532

CBDP 

76 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 162,406 0 162,406 77 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 188,188 0 188,188 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 146 5,109,416 –37 –429,663 109 4,679,753 

455 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 99,200 0 99,200 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................. 0 99,200 0 0 0 99,200 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 16,232 118,888,737 57,162 16,182,628 73,394 135,071,365 

456 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

3 MQ–1 UAV ............................................................................................................... 6 54,000 0 6 54,000 

ROTARY 

15 CH–47 HELICOPTER ................................................................................................. 1 25,000 0 1 25,000 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

21 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) .......................................................................... 0 80,260 0 0 80,260 24 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) ......................................................................................... 0 750 0 0 750 26 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ..................................................................................... 0 22,180 0 0 22,180 

27 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................. 0 8,362 0 0 8,362 29 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ................................................................................. 0 10 0 0 10 31 DEGRADED VISUAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 0 49,450 0 0 49,450 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

37 CMWS ....................................................................................................................... 0 130,219 0 0 130,219 38 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ................................................ 0 9,310 0 0 9,310 

OTHER SUPPORT 

45 LAUNCHER GUIDED MISSILE: LONGBOW HELLFIRE XM2 ......................................... 12 2,000 0 12 2,000 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................................ 18 381,541 0 0 18 381,541 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND TEST PROCUREMENT ................................................... 0 113,857 0 –113,857 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–113,857 ] 

2 M-SHORAD—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 44 262,100 –17 –103,800 27 158,300 

457 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–17 ] [–103,800 ] 

3 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................ 147 736,541 –138 –698,603 9 37,938 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–138 ] [–698,603 ] 

4 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I ................................................... 0 9,337 0 –9,337 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–9,337 ] 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

6 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 5,112 429,549 –1870 –193,284 3,242 236,265 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–1,870 ] [–193,284 ] 

7 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ...................................................................... 609 233,353 –609 –233,353 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–609 ] [–233,353 ] 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................... 697 142,794 –672 –138,405 25 4,389 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–672 ] [–138,405 ] 

9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 1,460 114,340 –1460 –114,340 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–1,460 ] [–114,340 ] 

10 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY AP ................................................................................. 0 10,500 0 –10,500 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–10,500 ] 

11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................. 9,853 1,228,809 –6489 –797,213 3,364 431,596 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–6,489 ] [–797,213 ] 

12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) ............................................. 2,982 27,555 –2982 –27,555 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–2,982 ] [–27,555 ] 

14 ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM .................................................... 240 340,612 –146 –209,842 94 130,770 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–146 ] [–209,842 ] 

15 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE SYSTEM (LMAMS ............................................ 1,835 83,300 0 1,835 83,300 

MODIFICATIONS 

16 PATRIOT MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 279,464 0 –279,464 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–279,464 ] 

17 ATACMS MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 85,320 0 –85,320 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–85,320 ] 

18 GMLRS MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 5,094 0 –5,094 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–5,094 ] 

19 STINGER MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 89,115 0 –81,615 0 7,500 

458 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–81,615 ] 

20 AVENGER MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 14,107 0 –14,107 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–14,107 ] 

21 ITAS/TOW MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 3,469 0 –3,469 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–3,469 ] 

22 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 387,019 0 –39,019 0 348,000 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–39,019 ] 

23 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 0 12,483 0 –12,483 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–12,483 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

24 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS .................................................................................... 0 26,444 0 –26,444 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–26,444 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

25 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 0 10,593 0 –10,593 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–10,593 ] 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................................... 22,979 4,645,755 –14,383 –3,207,697 8,596 1,438,058 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .......................................................... 66 221,638 0 66 221,638 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

3 STRYKER (MOD) ....................................................................................................... 0 4,100 0 0 4,100 

8 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) .............................................. 16 80,146 0 16 80,146 

13 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ........................................................................................ 0 13,100 0 0 13,100 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

15 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) ................................................................ 0 900 0 0 900 

459 

16 MULTI-ROLE ANTI-ARMOR ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON S ......................................... 0 2,400 0 0 2,400 19 MORTAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 0 18,941 0 0 18,941 20 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ......................................................... 0 526 0 0 526 23 CARBINE .................................................................................................................. 0 1,183 0 0 1,183 25 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION .............................................. 0 4,182 0 0 4,182 26 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................. 0 248 0 0 248 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

31 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................ 0 6,090 0 0 6,090 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................................................... 82 353,454 0 0 82 353,454 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 0 69,516 0 –68,949 0 567 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–68,949 ] 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 0 114,268 0 –114,228 0 40 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–114,228 ] 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 0 17,824 0 –17,807 0 17 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–17,807 ] 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 0 64,155 0 –63,966 0 189 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–63,966 ] 

5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 35,920 0 –35,920 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–35,920 ] 

6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 8,990 0 –8,990 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–8,990 ] 

7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 93,713 0 –68,813 0 24,900 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–68,813 ] 

8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 103,952 0 –103,952 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–103,952 ] 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 0 50,580 0 –50,580 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–50,580 ] 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 0 59,373 0 –59,373 0 0 

460 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–59,373 ] 

11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 0 125,452 0 –125,452 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–125,452 ] 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................ 0 171,284 0 –171,284 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–171,284 ] 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES .......................................... 0 44,675 0 –44,675 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–44,675 ] 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES .......................................................... 0 266,037 0 –266,037 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–266,037 ] 

15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ................................................................... 745 93,486 –441 –57,434 304 36,052 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–441 ] [–57,434 ] 

16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................ 0 278,873 0 –271,602 0 7,271 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–271,602 ] 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................. 0 55,433 0 –55,433 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–55,433 ] 

ROCKETS 

18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ....................................................... 0 75,054 0 –74,878 0 176 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–74,878 ] 

19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 255,453 0 –175,994 0 79,459 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–175,994 ] 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 0 7,595 0 –7,595 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–7,595 ] 

461 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................... 0 51,651 0 –51,651 0 0

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–51,651 ] 

22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 40,592 0 –40,592 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–40,592 ] 

23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 18,609 0 –18,609 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–18,609 ] 

24 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 16,054 0 –16,054 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–16,054 ] 

MISCELLANEOUS 

25 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 0 5,261 0 –5,261 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–5,261 ] 

26 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES .................................................................... 0 715 0 –715 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–715 ] 

27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................. 0 9,224 0 –9,213 0 11 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–9,213 ] 

28 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 0 10,044 0 –10,044 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–10,044 ] 

29 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ....................................................... 0 18,492 0 –18,492 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–18,492 ] 

30 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 99 0 –99 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–99 ] 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

31 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 0 474,511 0 –474,511 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–474,511 ] 

32 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ....................................................... 0 202,512 0 –202,512 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–202,512 ] 

33 ARMS INITIATIVE ...................................................................................................... 0 3,833 0 –3,833 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–3,833 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................................................... 745 2,843,230 –441 –2,694,548 304 148,682 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

462 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ....................................................... 0 26,917 0 0 26,917 11 PLS ESP ................................................................................................................... 0 16,941 0 0 16,941 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................. 0 62,734 0 0 62,734 14 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ..................................................... 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 15 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP ............................................................................. 0 28,000 0 0 28,000

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

22 TACTICAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY MOD IN SVC ..................................................... 0 40,000 0 0 40,000 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

29 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ..................................... 0 6,930 0 0 6,930 31 ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING .................................................. 0 11,778 0 0 11,778 32 SMART-T (SPACE) .................................................................................................... 0 825 0 0 825 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

40 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) ........................................................................ 0 350 0 0 350 47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 20,400 0 0 20,400 48 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ......................................... 0 1,231 0 0 1,231 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

51 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) .................................................................... 0 6,200 0 0 6,200 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

59 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 0 20,482 0 0 20,482 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 0 55,800 0 0 55,800 

63 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM .......................................... 0 75,820 0 0 75,820 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

68 DCGS-A (MIP) .......................................................................................................... 0 38,613 0 0 38,613 70 TROJAN (MIP) ........................................................................................................... 0 1,337 0 0 1,337 71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) .............................................................. 0 2,051 0 0 2,051 

463 

75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION DEVICES (MIP) ................................................. 0 1,800 0 0 1,800 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

82 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAP. (MIP) ................................................ 0 71,493 0 0 71,493 83 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ......................................... 0 6,917 0 0 6,917 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

85 SENTINEL MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 20,000 0 0 20,000 86 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................ 0 3,676 0 0 3,676 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ....................................................... 0 25,568 0 0 25,568 97 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 .................................................................... 0 570 0 0 570 98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................................ 0 15,975 0 0 15,975 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

103 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................. 0 14,331 0 0 14,331 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

112 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................ 0 6,014 0 0 6,014 113 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................................... 0 32,700 0 0 32,700 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................... 0 8,200 0 –8,200 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–8,200 ] 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

124 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ........................................................... 0 25,480 0 0 25,480 125 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) .............................................................................. 0 47,110 0 0 47,110

126 CBRN DEFENSE ........................................................................................................ 0 18,711 0 0 18,711 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

128 TACTICAL BRIDGING ................................................................................................. 0 4,884 0 0 4,884 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

133 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) .............................................. 0 4,500 0 0 4,500 135 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ....................................................... 0 34,253 0 0 34,253 136 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ......................................................... 0 3,300 0 0 3,300 140 RENDER SAFE SETS KITS OUTFITS .......................................................................... 0 84,000 0 0 84,000 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

143 HEATERS AND ECU’S ............................................................................................... 0 8 0 0 8 145 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ................................................. 0 5,101 0 0 5,101 

464 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

146 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 0 1,760 0 0 1,760 148 FORCE PROVIDER .................................................................................................... 0 56,400 0 0 56,400 150 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ....................................... 0 2,040 0 0 2,040 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

154 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ..................................................... 0 13,986 0 0 13,986 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

155 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL .................................................................................... 0 2,735 0 0 2,735

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

159 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ...................................................................................... 0 4,669 0 0 4,669 

160 LOADERS .................................................................................................................. 0 380 0 0 380 162 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ........................................................................................ 0 8,225 0 0 8,225 164 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ...................................................... 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 166 CONST EQUIP ESP ................................................................................................... 0 3,870 0 0 3,870 167 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ............................................................... 0 350 0 0 350 

GENERATORS 

171 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................................... 0 2,436 0 0 2,436 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS .............................................................................................. 0 5,152 0 0 5,152 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

175 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ............................................................................. 0 2,106 0 0 2,106 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

181 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ................................................... 0 1,395 0 0 1,395 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

184 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................. 0 24,122 0 0 24,122 185 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) .................................................................... 0 10,016 0 0 10,016 187 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ...................................................... 0 33,354 0 0 33,354 

465 

189 BUILDING, PRE-FAB, RELOCATABLE ........................................................................ 0 62,654 0 0 62,654 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ...................................................................... 0 1,139,650 0 –8,200 0 1,131,450 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER AIRCRAFT 

26 STUASL0 UAV ........................................................................................................... 0 7,921 0 0 7,921 

27 MQ–9A REAPER ....................................................................................................... 3 77,000 0 3 77,000 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

36 EP–3 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 5,488 0 0 5,488 

46 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ................................................................................... 0 3,498 0 0 3,49851 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 3,406 0 0 3,406 53 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................. 0 3,274 0 0 3,274 62 QRC .......................................................................................................................... 0 18,458 0 0 18,458 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................. 3 119,045 0 0 3 119,045 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ..................................................................................................... 0 1,177,251 0 –1,177,251 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–1,177,251 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .............................................................................. 0 7,142 0 –7,142 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–7,142 ] 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................................... 90 386,730 –90 –386,730 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–90 ] [–386,730 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................... 169 224,502 –169 –224,502 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–169 ] [–224,502 ] 

5 SIDEWINDER ............................................................................................................. 292 119,456 –292 –119,456 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–292 ] [–119,456 ] 

7 STANDARD MISSILE .................................................................................................. 125 404,523 –125 –404,523 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–125 ] [–404,523 ] 

466 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 STANDARD MISSILE AP ............................................................................................ 0 96,085 0 –96,085 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–96,085 ] 

9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ...................................................................................... 750 118,466 –750 –118,466 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–750 ] [–118,466 ] 

10 RAM ......................................................................................................................... 120 106,765 –120 –106,765 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–120 ] [–106,765 ] 

11 JOINT AIR GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ........................................................................ 382 90,966 0 382 90,966 12 HELLFIRE .................................................................................................................. 29 1,525 –29 –1,525 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–29 ] [–1,525 ] 

15 AERIAL TARGETS ...................................................................................................... 0 152,380 0 –145,880 0 6,500 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–145,880 ] 

16 DRONES AND DECOYS ............................................................................................. 30 20,000 –30 –20,000 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–30 ] [–20,000 ] 

17 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 0 3,388 0 –3,388 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–3,388 ] 

18 LRASM ...................................................................................................................... 48 143,200 –48 –143,200 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–48 ] [–143,200 ] 

19 LCS OTH MISSILE ..................................................................................................... 18 38,137 –18 –38,137 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–18 ] [–38,137 ] 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

20 ESSM ........................................................................................................................ 60 128,059 –60 –128,059 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–60 ] [–128,059 ] 

21 HARPOON MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 25,447 0 –25,447 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–25,447 ] 

22 HARM MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 183,740 0 –183,740 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–183,740 ] 

467 

23 STANDARD MISSILES MODS ..................................................................................... 0 22,500 0 –22,500 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–22,500 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

24 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ........................................................................... 0 1,958 0 –1,958 0 0

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–1,958 ] 

25 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ...................................................................... 0 67,380 0 –67,380 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–67,380 ] 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

27 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 109,427 0 –109,427 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–109,427 ] 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

28 SSTD ........................................................................................................................ 0 5,561 0 –5,561 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–5,561 ] 

29 MK–48 TORPEDO ..................................................................................................... 58 114,000 –58 –114,000 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–58 ] [–114,000 ] 

30 ASW TARGETS .......................................................................................................... 0 15,095 0 –15,095 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–15,095 ] 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

31 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS .......................................................................................... 0 119,453 0 –119,453 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–119,453 ] 

32 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS .............................................................................. 0 39,508 0 –39,508 0 0

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–39,508 ] 

33 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................. 0 5,183 0 –5,183 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–5,183 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

34 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 79,028 0 –79,028 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–79,028 ] 

35 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 0 3,890 0 –3,890 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–3,890 ] 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

36 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................... 0 3,803 0 –3,803 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–3,803 ] 

468 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

37 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ................................................................................... 0 14,797 0 –14,797 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–14,797 ] 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

38 CIWS MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 44,126 0 –44,126 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–44,126 ] 

39 COAST GUARD WEAPONS ......................................................................................... 0 44,980 0 –44,980 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–44,980 ] 

40 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 66,376 0 –66,376 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–66,376 ] 

41 LCS MODULE WEAPONS ........................................................................................... 120 14,585 –120 –14,585 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–120 ] [–14,585 ] 

43 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ........................................................... 0 7,160 0 –7,160 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–7,160 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

45 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS .................................................................................... 0 126,138 0 –126,138 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–126,138 ] 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................. 2,291 4,332,710 –1,909 –4,235,244 382 97,466 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ..................................................................................... 0 63,006 0 –36,028 0 26,978 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–36,028 ] 

2 JDAM ........................................................................................................................ 3,388 82,676 –2844 –70,413 544 12,263 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–2,844 ] [–70,413 ] 

3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ............................................................................. 0 76,776 0 –31,756 0 45,020 

469 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–31,756 ] 

4 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION .................................................................................... 0 38,370 0 –4,793 0 33,577 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–4,793 ] 

5 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................... 0 46,611 0 –34,708 0 11,903 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–34,708 ] 

6 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES .............................................................. 0 60,819 0 –45,738 0 15,081 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–45,738 ] 

7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................... 0 94,212 0 –77,301 0 16,911 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–77,301 ] 

8 JATOS ....................................................................................................................... 0 7,262 0 –7,262 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–7,262 ] 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION .................................................................................. 0 22,594 0 –22,594 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–22,594 ] 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................ 0 37,193 0 –37,193 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–37,193 ] 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................................... 0 42,753 0 –39,491 0 3,262 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–39,491 ] 

12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO .................................................................. 0 48,906 0 –47,896 0 1,010 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–47,896 ] 

13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................. 0 11,158 0 –10,621 0 537 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–10,621 ] 

15 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ..................................................................... 0 2,386 0 –2,386 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–2,386 ] 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

16 MORTARS ................................................................................................................. 0 57,473 0 –55,543 0 1,930 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–55,543 ] 

17 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS .................................................................................. 0 132,937 0 –131,765 0 1,172 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–131,765 ] 

18 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ........................................................................... 0 80,214 0 –78,056 0 2,158 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–78,056 ] 

19 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................ 0 41,013 0 –40,048 0 965 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–40,048 ] 

470 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

20 AMMO MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................... 0 14,325 0 –14,325 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–14,325 ] 

21 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS ............................................................................................. 0 220,923 0 –188,876 0 32,047 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–188,876 ] 

22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................................ 0 4,521 0 –4,521 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–4,521 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ....................................................... 3,388 1,186,128 –2,844 –981,314 544 204,814 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

20 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 0 5,800 0 0 5,800 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

42 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 0 310,503 0 0 310,503 

SONOBUOYS 

85 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ........................................................................................ 0 2,910 0 0 2,910

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

88 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 13,420 0 0 13,420 94 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 500 0 0 500 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

103 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP ................................................................. 0 15,307 0 0 15,307 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ........................................................................... 0 173 0 0 173 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS .................................................................................... 0 408 0 0 408 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 785 0 0 785 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 100 0 0 100 

471 

118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................... 0 510 0 0 510 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

122 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 2,800 0 0 2,800 123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 1,794 0 0 1,794 126 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 1,090 0 0 1,090 128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 0 200 0 0 200 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 1,300 0 0 1,300 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ...................................................................... 0 357,600 0 0 0 357,600 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 

12 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................. 130 16,919 0 130 16,919 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

45 EOD SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 0 3,670 0 0 3,670 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS .................................................................. 130 20,589 0 0 130 20,589 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRCRAFT 

17 MQ–9 ....................................................................................................................... 9 172,240 0 9 172,240 

18 RQ–20B PUMA ......................................................................................................... 18 12,150 0 18 12,150 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

22 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................. 0 53,335 0 0 53,335 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

67 MQ–9 UAS PAYLOADS .............................................................................................. 0 19,800 0 0 19,800 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

69 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................ 0 44,560 0 0 44,560 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

72 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP .............................................................. 0 7,025 0 0 7,025 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................................ 27 309,110 0 0 27 309,110 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

472 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

4 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE .................................................................. 19 20,900 0 19 20,900 8 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................. 2,328 180,771 0 2,328 180,771 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .......................................................... 2,347 201,671 0 0 2,347 201,671 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................. 0 218,228 0 –133,268 0 84,960 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–133,268 ] 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES ............................................................................................................ 0 193,091 0 –140,449 0 52,642 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–140,449 ] 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................... 0 29,313 0 –29,313 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–29,313 ] 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ..................................................................................... 0 631,194 0 –85,885 0 545,309 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–85,885 ] 

6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ............................................................................. 37,000 1,066,224 –37000 –1,066,224 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–37,000 ] [–1,066,224 ] 

7 B61 .......................................................................................................................... 533 80,773 –533 –80,773 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [–533 ] [–80,773 ] 

OTHER ITEMS 

9 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................. 0 47,069 0 –47,069 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–47,069 ] 

10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................. 0 6,133 0 –6,133 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–6,133 ] 

11 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS .................................................................................... 0 533 0 –533 0 0 

473 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–533 ] 

12 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 0 1,291 0 –1,291 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–1,291 ] 

13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5,000,000 ................................................................................ 0 1,677 0 –1,677 0 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–1,677 ] 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ..................................................................................................................... 0 129,388 0 –36,116 0 93,272 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–36,116 ] 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ...................................................................................................................... 0 158,889 0 –1,734 0 157,155 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–1,734 ] 

SMALL ARMS 

17 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................ 0 43,591 0 –37,496 0 6,095 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–37,496 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............................................. 37,533 2,607,394 –37,533 –1,667,961 0 939,433 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ........................................................................... 0 1,276 0 0 1,276 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................ 0 9,702 0 0 9,702 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE .............................................................................. 0 40,999 0 0 40,9997 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................. 0 52,502 0 0 52,502

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES .............................................................. 0 16,652 0 0 16,652 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

9 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 2,944 0 0 2,944 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU .......................................................... 0 3,753 0 0 3,753 11 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ............................................................... 0 11,837 0 0 11,837 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

474 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 31 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 106,919 0 0 106,919 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

48 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 306 0 0 306 52 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................... 0 4,300 0 0 4,300 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

54 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 22,200 0 0 22,200 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

59 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................................. 0 26,535 0 0 26,535 60 FUELS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (FSE) ......................................................................... 0 4,040 0 0 4,040 61 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................... 0 20,067 0 0 20,067 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................... 0 3,864,066 0 –655,000 0 3,209,066 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–655,000 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................. 0 4,193,098 0 –655,000 0 3,538,098 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

9 TELEPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 0 3,800 0 0 3,800 

12 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK ............................................................ 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

27 COUNTER IED & IMPROVISED THREAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................... 0 4,590 0 0 4,590 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................... 0 56,380 0 –5,000 0 51,380 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................... [0 ] [–5,000 ] 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

475 

50 MANNED ISR ............................................................................................................ 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 51 MC–12 ..................................................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 52 MH–60 BLACKHAWK ................................................................................................ 0 28,100 0 0 28,100 54 UNMANNED ISR ........................................................................................................ 0 8,207 0 0 8,207 56 U–28 ........................................................................................................................ 0 31,500 0 0 31,500 57 MH–47 CHINOOK ..................................................................................................... 0 37,500 0 0 37,500 59 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ........................................................................ 0 1,900 0 0 1,900 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

64 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ......................................................................................... 0 138,252 0 0 138,252 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

65 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 16,500 0 0 16,500 

67 OTHER ITEMS <$5M ................................................................................................ 0 28 0 0 28 70 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................. 0 2,990 0 0 2,990 71 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ....................................................................................... 0 37,512 0 0 37,512 72 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 74 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ........................................................ 0 7,594 0 0 7,594 75 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................ 0 45,194 0 0 45,194 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................. 0 452,047 0 –5,000 0 447,047 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................. 69,543 23,143,022 –57,110 –13,454,964 12,433 9,688,058 

(477) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

478 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 297,976 5,000 302,976 

Counter UAS University Research .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 65,858 65,858 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 86,164 2,000 88,164 

3D printing ............................................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

5 0601121A CYBER COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH ALLIANCE ................................................................................ 4,982 5,000 9,982 

Cyber basic research .............................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 454,980 12,000 466,980 APPLIED RESEARCH 

10 0602141A LETHALITY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 26,961 26,961 11 0602142A ARMY APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... 25,319 25,319 12 0602143A SOLDIER LETHALITY TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................... 115,274 3,000 118,274 

UPL MDTF for INDOPACOM ..................................................................................................... [3,000 ] 

13 0602144A GROUND TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 35,199 6,500 41,699 

Advanced materials manufacturing process ......................................................................... [2,000 ] Biopolymer structural materials ............................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

479 

Cellulose structural materials ................................................................................................ [2,500 ] 

14 0602145A NEXT GENERATION COMBAT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 219,047 15,000 234,047 

Support operational energy development and testing ........................................................... [15,000 ] 

15 0602146A NETWORK C3I TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 114,516 114,516 16 0602147A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 74,327 12,000 86,327 

Composite tube and propulsion technology ........................................................................... [10,000 ] Novel printed armament components .................................................................................... [2,000 ] 

17 0602148A FUTURE VERTICLE LIFT TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 93,601 93,601 18 0602150A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................... 50,771 50,771 20 0602213A C3I APPLIED CYBER ......................................................................................................................... 18,947 5,000 23,947 

Cyber research ........................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

38 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 20,873 20,873 

40 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 99,155 3,000 102,155 

Female warfighter performance research .............................................................................. [3,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 893,990 44,500 938,490 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

42 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 42,030 42,030 47 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 11,038 11,038 50 0603117A ARMY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 63,338 63,338 

51 0603118A SOLDIER LETHALITY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 118,468 118,468 52 0603119A GROUND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 12,593 20,000 32,593 

100 hour battery ..................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Computational manufacturing engineering ........................................................................... [2,000 ] Lightweight protective and hardening materials .................................................................. [3,000 ] Robotic construction research ................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

59 0603457A C3I CYBER ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 13,769 13,769 60 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 184,755 184,755 61 0603462A NEXT GENERATION COMBAT VEHICLE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................... 160,035 25,000 185,035 

Ground vehicle sustainment research ................................................................................... [5,000 ] Hydrogen fuel cell propulsion & autonomous driving controls ............................................. [20,000 ] 

62 0603463A NETWORK C3I ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 106,899 106,899 

480 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

63 0603464A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 174,386 4,000 178,386 

Hypersonics research .............................................................................................................. [4,000 ] 

64 0603465A FUTURE VERTICAL LIFT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 151,640 151,640 65 0603466A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 60,613 60,613 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1,099,564 49,000 1,148,564 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

73 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 10,987 10,987 

74 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ...................................................................... 15,148 15,148 75 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 92,915 92,915 77 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 82,146 82,146 78 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM MODERNIZATION—ADV DEV ............................................................................. 157,656 157,656 79 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 6,514 6,514 80 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 34,890 34,890 

81 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 251,011 251,011 82 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 15,132 15,132 83 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 5,406 5,406 84 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 459,290 75,600 534,890 

UPL FVL CS3 program increase ............................................................................................. [75,600 ] 

85 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 6,254 6,254 86 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 31,175 31,175 87 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 22,113 22,113 88 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 115,222 115,222 90 0604021A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY MATURATION (MIP) .............................................................. 18,043 18,043 91 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 10,023 10,023 92 0604113A FUTURE TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (FTUAS) ............................................................ 40,745 40,745 93 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR .................................................................... 427,772 427,772 

481 

94 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 196,676 196,676 95 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) ................................................................ 33,100 33,100 97 0604119A ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING .................................................... 115,116 115,116 99 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT & PROTOTYPING .............................................. 136,761 136,761 

100 0604182A HYPERSONICS .................................................................................................................................. 228,000 130,610 358,610 

UPL accelerate Hypersonic Weapons System ......................................................................... [130,610 ] 

102 0604403A FUTURE INTERCEPTOR ..................................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 

103 0604541A UNIFIED NETWORK TRANSPORT ....................................................................................................... 39,600 39,600 104 0604644A MOBILE MEDIUM RANGE MISSILE .................................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 106 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ............................................................ 52,102 52,102 107 1206120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 192,562 192,562 108 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................................. 104,996 104,996 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 2,929,355 206,210 3,135,565 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

109 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 29,164 29,164 

110 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 70,539 70,539 113 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 106,121 19,900 126,021 

UPL Next Generation Squad Weapon—Automatic Rifle ........................................................ [19,900 ] 

114 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 2,152 2,152 

115 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 17,897 17,897 116 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 16,745 16,745 117 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 6,989 6,989 118 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 10,465 10,465 119 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION (ASM)—ENG DEV ................................................................ 310,152 310,152 120 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 181,732 181,732 121 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 2,393 2,393 122 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 27,412 27,412 123 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 43,502 43,502 124 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 11,636 11,636 125 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 10,915 10,915 126 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 7,801 7,801 

482 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

127 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) ................................................................................. 25,000 25,000 128 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 9,241 9,241 129 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 42,634 42,634 130 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ........................................................................................... 181,023 181,023 131 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 103,226 103,226 132 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 12,595 12,595 133 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 48,264 48,264 134 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 39,208 39,208 135 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 140,637 140,637 136 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 105,243 105,243 137 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 46,683 46,683 138 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 17,294 17,294 139 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 5,803 5,803 140 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................ 98,698 98,698 141 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 15,832 15,832 142 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 126,537 126,537 143 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 142,773 –142,773 

Poor business process reengineering ..................................................................................... [–142,773 ] 

144 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 96,730 96,730 145 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C) ..................... 6,699 6,699 146 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 15,882 15,882 147 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 40,808 40,808 149 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E) ................. 3,847 3,847 150 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM (TSS) ................................................................................................. 6,928 6,928 151 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 34,488 34,488 152 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CWMD) ................................................................ 10,000 10,000 154 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR SUITE ............... 6,054 6,054 

483 

155 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 62,262 62,262 156 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER) .......................................................................... 35,654 35,654 157 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 19,682 –19,682 

Program duplication ............................................................................................................... [–19,682 ] 

158 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM MODERNIZATION (MWSM) .................................................................... 1,539 1,539 159 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 64,557 64,557 160 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2—BLOCK 1 ........................................................... 243,228 –93,600 149,628 

EMAM development ahead of need ........................................................................................ [–124,200 ] Iron Dome testing and delivery .............................................................................................. [20,600 ] UPL Multi-Domain Artillery ..................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

161 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS .......................................................................................................................... 41,308 –12,800 28,508 

Army requested realignment .................................................................................................. [–12,800 ] 

162 0605054A EMERGING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES .............................................................................................. 45,896 45,896 163 0605203A ARMY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ......................................................................... 164,883 164,883 165 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 9,500 9,500 166 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 208,938 208,938 167 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ............................................................................................................. 378,400 40,000 418,400 

UPL NGCV 50mm gun ............................................................................................................ [40,000 ] 

168 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 7,835 7,835 169 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 2,732 4,500 7,232 

Army requested realignment .................................................................................................. [4,500 ] 

170 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 1,664 1,664 172 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 3,936 3,936 174 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 19,675 19,675 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 3,549,431 –204,455 3,344,976 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

176 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 14,117 2,000 16,117 

Cybersecurity threat simulation ............................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

177 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 8,327 8,327 178 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 136,565 136,565 179 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 13,113 13,113 

484 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

180 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 238,691 238,691 181 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 42,922 42,922 183 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 334,468 15,000 349,468 

Directed energy test capabilities ........................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

184 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 46,974 46,974 185 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 35,075 35,075 186 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 3,461 3,461 187 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 6,233 6,233 188 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 21,342 21,342 189 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 11,168 11,168 190 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 52,723 52,723 191 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 60,815 60,815 192 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 2,527 2,527 193 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 58,175 58,175 194 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 25,060 25,060 195 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 44,458 44,458 196 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 4,681 4,681 197 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT HEADQUARTERS—R&D - MHA ................................................................... 53,820 53,820 198 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED CREW TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 4,291 4,291 199 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE ............................................................. 62,069 62,069 200 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN INTEL MODERNIZATION ...................................................................... 1,050 1,050 201 0606942A ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 4,500 4,500 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .................................................................................... 1,286,625 17,000 1,303,625 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

204 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 22,877 22,877 

206 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 8,491 8,491 

485 

207 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................. 15,645 15,645 209 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES (LRPF) ........................................................................................... 164,182 164,182 211 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 13,039 13,039 212 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 174,371 174,371 213 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 4,545 4,545 214 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 206,434 206,434 216 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 24,221 24,221 217 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS .................................................................. 32,016 32,016 218 0607145A APACHE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 5,448 5,448 219 0607312A ARMY OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 49,526 49,526 220 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ................................................................................................................... 1,702 1,702 221 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 96,430 96,430 222 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) ....................................... 47,398 47,398 223 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 334,463 334,463 225 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 214,246 214,246 226 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 16,486 16,486 227 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 144 144 228 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 5,270 5,270 229 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 1,287 1,287 230 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 0 24,100 24,100 

UPL CD ATACMS ..................................................................................................................... [24,100 ] 

234 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ......................................... 732 732 235 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 107,746 107,746 236 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 138,594 138,594 238 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 13,845 13,845 239 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 29,185 29,185 240 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 68,976 68,976 241 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 2,073 2,073 

245 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 459 459 246 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 5,097 5,097 247 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 11,177 11,177 248 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 38,121 38,121 

486 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

250 0305232A RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 3,218 3,218 251 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 7,817 7,817 252 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 253 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 59,848 3,000 62,848 

Nanoscale materials manufacturing ...................................................................................... [3,000 ]

254 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 34,169 34,169 255 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10,275 10,275 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 7,273 7,273 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 1,978,826 27,100 2,005,926 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 12,192,771 151,355 12,344,126 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 116,850 10,000 126,850 

Cyber basic research .............................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 19,121 19,121 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 470,007 470,007 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 605,978 10,000 615,978 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 18,546 18,546 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 119,517 16,500 136,017 

Carbon capture ....................................................................................................................... [8,000 ] Electric propulsion research ................................................................................................... [2,500 ] Energy resilience research ...................................................................................................... [3,000 ] Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

487 

Test bed for autonomous ship systems ................................................................................. [8,000 ] 

6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 56,604 3,000 59,604 

Interdisciplinary cybersecurity ................................................................................................ [3,000 ] 

7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 49,297 –5,000 44,297 

Coordinate space activities .................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 63,825 2,000 65,825 

Warfighter safety and performance research ........................................................................ [2,000 ] 

9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 83,497 –5,000 78,497 

Coordinate EW activities ........................................................................................................ [–5,000 ] 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 63,894 63,894 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,346 6,346 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 57,075 7,500 64,575 

Undersea vehicle technology research ................................................................................... [7,500 ]

13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 154,755 154,755 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 36,074 36,074 15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................... 153,062 153,062 16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT—ONR FIELD ACITIVITIES ............................................ 73,961 73,961 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 936,453 19,000 955,453 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

17 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 35,286 35,286 

18 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 9,499 9,499 19 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 172,847 4,000 176,847 

Consolidate efforts in AI/ML with Joint Force ........................................................................ [–5,000 ] UPL MUDLAN program increase ............................................................................................. [9,000 ] 

20 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 13,307 13,307 21 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 231,907 231,907 22 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 60,138 60,138 23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,849 4,849 25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 67,739 67,739 26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 13,335 13,335 27 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .......................... 133,303 –5,000 128,303 

488 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Reduce electronic manuever .................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 742,210 –1,000 741,210 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 32,643 6,000 38,643 

Program increase for 1 REMUS 600 vehicle ......................................................................... [6,000 ] 

29 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 11,919 11,919 30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 1,473 1,473 31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,172 7,172 32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 3,419 3,419 33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 64,694 64,694 34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 507,000 –372,500 134,500 

Excess procurement ahead of satisfactory testing ............................................................... [–372,500 ] 

35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 15,800 15,800 36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 4,997 4,997 37 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 291,148 291,148 38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 11,980 11,980 39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 129,163 129,163 40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 689 689 41 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,137 1,137 42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 148,756 5,000 153,756 

Project 2033: Test site emergent repairs .............................................................................. [5,000 ] 

43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 11,192 11,192 44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 81,846 –24,000 57,846 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–24,000 ] 

45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 69,084 –46,600 22,484 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–46,600 ] 

489 

46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 181,652 181,652 47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 25,408 125,000 150,408 

Surface combatant component-level prototyping .................................................................. [125,000 ] 

48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 64,877 64,877 49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 9,934 9,934 50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 17,251 17,251 51 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 419,051 15,000 434,051 

Accelerate advanced propulsor development ......................................................................... [15,000 ] 

52 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 108,505 –5,000 103,505 

Availabe prior year funds due to SUW MP testing delay ...................................................... [–5,000 ] 

53 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 7,653 7,653 

54 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 59,007 59,007 55 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 9,988 9,988 56 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 86,464 86,464 57 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 33,478 33,478 58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 5,619 5,619 59 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 20,564 20,564 60 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 26,514 26,514 61 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 3,440 3,440 62 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 346,800 346,800 63 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 3,857 3,857 64 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 258,519 258,519 65 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 403,909 403,909 66 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 63,434 63,434 67 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 184,110 184,110 68 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 7,697 7,697 69 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 9,086 9,086 70 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 28,466 28,466 71 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 51,341 51,341 72 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 118,169 118,169 73 0604014N F/A –18 INFRARED SEARCH AND TRACK (IRST) ............................................................................. 113,456 113,456 74 0604027N DIGITAL WARFARE OFFICE ................................................................................................................ 50,120 50,120 

490 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

75 0604028N SMALL AND MEDIUM UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ................................................................. 32,527 32,527 76 0604029N UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE CORE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................. 54,376 54,376 77 0604030N RAPID PROTOTYPING, EXPERIMENTATION AND DEMONSTRATION. ................................................... 36,197 36,197 78 0604031N LARGE UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ....................................................................................... 68,310 68,310 79 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 121,310 121,310 80 0604126N LITTORAL AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................... 17,248 17,248 81 0604127N SURFACE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................... 18,735 18,735 82 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 68,346 68,346 84 0604289M NEXT GENERATION LOGISTICS ......................................................................................................... 4,420 9,000 13,420 

Additive manufacturing logistics software pilot ................................................................... [9,000 ] 

85 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE ................................................................................. 4,558 4,558 

86 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 12,500 12,500 87 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA PROTOTYPING .............................................................................................. 181,967 181,967 88 0604636N COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (C-UAS) ....................................................................... 5,500 5,500 89 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 718,148 5,000 723,148 

Increase for SLCM-N AOA ....................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

90 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 5,263 5,263 91 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 65,419 65,419 92 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 9,991 9,991 93 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 21,157 21,157 95 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 609 609 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 5,559,062 –283,100 5,275,962 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

96 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 15,514 15,514 

97 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 28,835 28,835 98 0604214M AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 27,441 27,441 

491 

100 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 3,642 3,642 101 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 19,196 19,196 104 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 8,601 8,601 105 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 77,232 77,232 106 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 232,752 232,752 107 0604245M H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 65,359 65,359 109 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 47,013 47,013 110 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 185,105 5,500 190,605 

Increase reliability and reduce vibrations of V–22 Nacelles ................................................ [5,500 ] 

111 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 21,172 21,172 

112 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 143,585 143,585 113 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 116,811 116,811 114 0604273M EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 187,436 187,436 116 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 524,261 524,261 117 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 192,345 192,345 118 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) INCREMENT II ........................................................................... 111,068 111,068 119 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 415,625 415,625 120 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 640 640 121 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 50,096 50,096 122 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 232,391 232,391 123 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 10,916 10,916 124 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 33,379 33,379 125 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 34,554 34,554 126 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 84,663 84,663 127 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 44,923 44,923 128 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 10,632 10,632 129 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER CONVERSION ................................................................................ 16,094 16,094 130 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ...................................................................... 55,349 55,349 131 0604530N ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ................................................................................................ 123,490 123,490 132 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 121,010 121,010 133 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 62,426 62,426 134 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 46,809 46,809 

492 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

135 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3,692 3,692 137 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 28,964 71,300 100,264 

UPL Quickstrike JDAM ER ....................................................................................................... [71,300 ] 

138 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 148,349 148,349 139 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 8,237 8,237 140 0604657M USMC GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ............................................... 22,000 22,000 141 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 5,500 5,500 142 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 18,725 18,725 143 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 192,603 192,603 144 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 137,268 137,268 145 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 97,363 97,363 146 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 26,710 26,710 147 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 8,181 8,181 148 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 40,755 40,755 149 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 1,710 1,710 150 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 1,490 1,490 153 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 1,494 1,494 154 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 384,162 –55,440 328,722 

eProcurement program duplication ........................................................................................ [–55,440 ] 

155 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 4,882 4,882 156 0605212M CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 516,955 –10,000 506,955 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

158 0605215N MISSION PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 75,886 75,886 159 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS .......................................................................................................................... 43,187 43,187 160 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 4,909 15,000 19,909 

Expand development and use of composite materials ......................................................... [15,000 ] 

161 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS .............................................................................................................................. 1,682 1,682 

493 

162 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION (UCA) ............................................................................................. 671,258 671,258 163 0605450M JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 18,393 18,393 165 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 21,472 21,472 166 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME (MMA) INCREMENT III ........................................................................... 177,234 177,234 167 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ......................... 77,322 77,322 168 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ..................... 2,105 2,105 169 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 111,435 111,435 172 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 101,339 101,339 173 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 26,406 26,406 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 6,332,033 26,360 6,358,393 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

174 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 66,678 66,678 

175 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 12,027 12,027 176 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 85,348 85,348 178 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 3,908 3,908 179 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 47,669 47,669 180 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER ............................................................................................................ 20,698 20,698 182 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 988 988 183 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 102,401 102,401 184 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3,742 3,742 186 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 93,872 93,872 187 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 394,020 394,020 188 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 25,145 25,145 189 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 15,773 15,773 190 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 8,402 8,402 191 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 37,265 37,265 192 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 39,673 39,673 193 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 28,750 28,750 196 0305327N INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 2,645 2,645 197 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS (DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES) ......................................... 1,460 1,460 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 990,464 0 990,464 

494 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

202 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 2,302 2,302 

203 0604840M F–35 C2D2 ....................................................................................................................................... 422,881 422,881 204 0604840N F–35 C2D2 ....................................................................................................................................... 383,741 383,741 205 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) .............................................................................. 127,924 127,924 207 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 157,676 157,676 208 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 43,354 43,354 209 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 6,815 6,815 210 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 31,174 31,174 211 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 213,715 213,715 213 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 36,389 36,389 214 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 320,134 320,134 215 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 88,382 15,000 103,382 

Additional TRAPS units ........................................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

216 0204313N SHIP-TOWED ARRAY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 14,449 14,449 217 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 6,931 6,931 218 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 23,891 23,891 219 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 129,873 129,873 221 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 82,325 82,325 222 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 138,431 138,431 224 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 29,572 29,572 225 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 85,973 85,973 226 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 125,461 125,461 227 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 106,192 106,192 228 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 143,317 143,317 229 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 4,489 4,489 

495 

230 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 51,788 51,788 231 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 37,761 5,000 42,761 

Airborne Power Generation Tech Development ....................................................................... [5,000 ] 

232 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 21,458 21,458 

233 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE ....................................................................................................... 5,476 5,476 234 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 19,488 19,488 235 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 39,029 39,029 239 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 34,344 34,344 240 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 22,873 22,873241 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 41,853 41,853 243 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 8,913 8,913 244 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 9,451 9,451 245 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 42,315 42,315 246 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 22,042 22,042 248 0305220N MQ–4C TRITON ................................................................................................................................ 11,784 11,784 249 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 29,618 29,618 250 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 509 509 251 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 11,545 11,545 252 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 10,914 10,914 253 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 70,612 70,612 254 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 3,704 3,704 255 0305421N RQ–4 MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 202,346 202,346 256 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 7,119 7,119 257 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 38,182 38,182 258 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 6,779 6,779 259 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 15,868 15,868 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,613,137 1,613,137 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 5,104,299 20,000 5,124,299 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 20,270,499 –208,740 20,061,759 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF 

496 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 356,107 356,107 2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 158,859 158,859 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 14,795 14,795 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 529,761 0 529,761 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 128,851 –6,000 122,851 

Advanced materials high energy x-ray .................................................................................. [4,000 ] Duplicative material research ................................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 147,724 –10,000 137,724 

Reduce program growth ......................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 131,795 131,795 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 198,775 198,775 8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 202,912 202,912 

10 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT— MAJOR HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES ....................... 7,968 7,968 12 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 142,772 142,772 13 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 124,379 124,379 14 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 181,562 17,500 199,062 

Counter UAS cyber .................................................................................................................. [2,500 ] Cyberspace dominance technology research ......................................................................... [10,000 ] Quantum science .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

15 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 44,221 5,000 49,221 

High power microwave research ............................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

16 1206601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 124,667 124,667 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,435,626 6,500 1,442,126 

497 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

17 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 36,586 2,000 38,586 

Metals affordability research ................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

18 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 16,249 16,249 19 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 38,292 38,292 20 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 102,949 205,000 307,949 

Accelerate air breathing hypersonic program ........................................................................ [75,000 ] Active winglets development .................................................................................................. [5,000 ] Advanced Personnel Recovery ................................................................................................ [25,000 ] LCAAT ...................................................................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

21 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 113,973 10,000 123,973 

Advanced turbine engine gas generator ................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

22 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 48,408 –10,000 38,408 

Duplicative EW & PNT research ............................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

23 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 70,525 3,000 73,525 

Strategic radiation hardened microelectronic processors ..................................................... [3,000 ] 

24 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 11,878 11,878 

25 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 37,542 37,542 26 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 225,817 225,817 27 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 37,404 37,404 28 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 43,116 7,000 50,116 

Advanced materials and materials manufacturing ............................................................... [7,000 ] 

29 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 56,414 10,000 66,414 

Cyber applied research ........................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 839,153 227,000 1,066,153 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

31 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,672 5,672 

32 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 27,085 27,085 33 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,955 4,955 34 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 44,109 44,109 36 0604002F AIR FORCE WEATHER SERVICES RESEARCH ................................................................................... 772 772 

498 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

37 0604004F ADVANCED ENGINE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 878,442 878,442 38 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE—BOMBER ..................................................................................................... 3,003,899 3,003,899 39 0604032F DIRECTED ENERGY PROTOTYPING ................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 40 0604033F HYPERSONICS PROTOTYPING ........................................................................................................... 576,000 576,000 41 0604201F PNT RESILIENCY, MODS, AND IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................... 92,600 32,000 124,600 

UPL M-CODE acceleration ...................................................................................................... [32,000 ] 

42 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SENSORS ......................................................................................... 23,145 23,145 43 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS CENTER (NAOC) RECAP ......................................................................... 16,669 16,669 44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 23,614 23,614 45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 113,121 113,121 46 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS .............................................................................. 56,325 56,325 47 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D .......................................................................... 28,034 28,034 48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 128,476 6,000 134,476 

Rapid repair ............................................................................................................................ [6,000 ] 

49 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ........................................................................................ 570,373 22,000 592,373 

Program consolidation ............................................................................................................ [22,000 ] 

50 0207100F LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECONNAISSANCE (LAAR) SQUADRONS ...................................................... 35,000 50,000 85,000 

Light attack experiment ......................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

51 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 52 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 37,290 37,290 53 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP) .................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 54 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) .......................................................................... 36,910 36,910 55 0305251F CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ............................................................ 35,000 35,000 

56 0305601F MISSION PARTNER ENVIRONMENTS ................................................................................................. 8,550 8,550 57 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 198,864 41,200 240,064 

Accelerate development of Cyber National Mission Force capabilities ................................. [13,600 ] ETERNALDARKNESS ................................................................................................................. [7,100 ] 

499 

Joint Common Access Platform .............................................................................................. [20,500 ] 

58 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 16,632 16,632 60 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ....................................................................... 20,830 20,830 61 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 329,948 329,94862 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 101,222 101,222 63 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 225,660 225,660 64 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 29,776 29,776 65 1206427F SPACE SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE TRANSITIONS (SSPT) ......................................................................... 142,045 142,045 67 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 64,231 64,231 68 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 56,385 56,385 69 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE (PTES) ...................................................................... 105,003 –10,000 95,003 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

70 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL SERVICE (PTS) ............................................................................................. 173,694 –10,000 163,694 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

71 1206855F EVOLVED STRATEGIC SATCOM (ESS) ............................................................................................... 172,206 172,206 72 1206857F SPACE RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE ................................................................................................ 33,742 33,742 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 8,436,279 131,200 8,567,479 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

73 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS ................................................................... 246,200 –149,080 97,120 

ERWn contract delay .............................................................................................................. [–149,080 ] 

74 0604201F PNT RESILIENCY, MODS, AND IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................... 67,782 81,000 148,782 

UPL M-Code Acceleration ....................................................................................................... [81,000 ] 

75 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 4,406 4,406 76 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 2,066 2,066 77 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 229,631 229,631 78 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 9,700 9,700 79 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 31,241 31,241 80 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 2 2 81 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 28,043 28,043 82 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3,045 3,045 83 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 19,944 19,944 

500 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

84 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 8,624 8,624 85 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 37,365 37,365 86 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 7,628 7,628 87 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 712,539 712,539 88 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 161,199 161,199 89 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 2,414 2,414 91 0605056F OPEN ARCHITECTURE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 93 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 59,561 59,561 94 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 348,473 348,473 95 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER ........................................................................................................ 247,047 247,047 98 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 294,400 294,400 99 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 27,564 27,564 

100 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 1 1 101 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 47,322 47,322 102 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON .............................................................................................................. 162,840 162,840 103 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 9,797 9,797 106 0401310F C–32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT RECAPITALIZATION .......................................................................... 9,930 9,930 107 0401319F VC–25B ............................................................................................................................................ 757,923 757,923 108 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 2,787 2,787 109 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR ............................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 110 1203269F GPS III FOLLOW-ON (GPS IIIF) ......................................................................................................... 462,875 462,875 111 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 76,829 76,829 112 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 29,037 29,037 113 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 2,237 2,237 114 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 412,894 412,894 115 1206426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

Space Fence ............................................................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

501 

116 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 117,290 117,290 117 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 427,400 427,400 118 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 1,920 1,920 119 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 1 1 120 1206442F NEXT GENERATION OPIR .................................................................................................................. 1,395,278 1,395,278 122 1206853F NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ................................................... 432,009 432,009 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 6,929,244 –48,080 6,881,164 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

123 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 59,693 59,693 

124 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 181,663 51,000 232,663 

UPL M-Code Acceleration ....................................................................................................... [36,000 ] 

Utah training range instrumentation ..................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

125 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 35,258 35,258 127 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 13,793 13,793 128 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 717,895 54,000 771,895 

Acelerate prototype program .................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

Facilitates 5G test and evaluation ........................................................................................ [49,000 ] 

129 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL POWER ................................................................................................. 258,667 258,667 130 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG & COMBAT SYS ............................................................................ 251,992 251,992 131 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL REACH ................................................................................................. 149,191 149,191 132 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, NETWORK, & BUS SYS ......................................................................... 235,360 235,360 133 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL BATTLE MGMT ..................................................................................... 160,196 160,196 134 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY INTEGRATION ................................................................................. 220,255 220,255 135 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED PRGM TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 42,392 42,392 136 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 133,231 133,231 137 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 5,590 5,590 138 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 88,445 88,445 139 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 29,424 29,424 

140 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 62,715 62,715 141 0606398F MANAGEMENT HQ—T&E .................................................................................................................. 5,013 5,013 142 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 17,128 17,128 

502 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

143 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 5,913 5,913 144 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,475 1,475 146 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 4,071 4,071 147 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 19,942 19,942 148 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 167,810 167,810 149 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER—MHA ................................................................................... 10,170 10,170 150 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 13,192 13,192 151 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 26,097 26,097 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 2,916,571 105,000 3,021,571 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

152 0604003F ADVANCED BATTLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ABMS) ........................................................................ 35,611 49,000 84,611 

Accelerates 5G military use ................................................................................................... [49,000 ] 

154 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 2,584 2,584 156 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D .......................................................................... 903 903 157 0604840F F–35 C2D2 ....................................................................................................................................... 694,455 694,455 158 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 40,567 –40,567 

Poor agile development .......................................................................................................... [–40,567 ] 

159 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 47,193 47,193 160 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ..................................................................... 70,083 70,083 161 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 17,218 –12,400 4,818 

program delay ......................................................................................................................... [–12,400 ] 

162 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................................ 25,917 25,917 164 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 325,974 325,974 165 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 10,217 10,217 166 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 167 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 97,276 97,276 

503 

168 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 128,961 –22,000 106,961 

Program consolidation ............................................................................................................ [–22,000 ] 

170 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 18,177 18,177 171 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC PLANNING & ANALYSIS NETWORK ............................................................ 24,261 24,261 172 0101328F ICBM REENTRY VEHICLES ................................................................................................................ 75,571 75,571 174 0102110F UH–1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 170,975 170,975 176 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 154,996 154,996 178 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 36,816 36,816 179 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 193,013 193,013 180 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 336,079 336,079 181 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 15,521 15,521 182 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 496,298 496,298 183 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 99,943 99,943 184 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 10,314 10,314 185 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 55,384 55,384 186 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 281 281 187 0207247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 21,365 21,365 188 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 10,696 10,696 189 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 15,888 15,888 190 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 112,505 112,505 191 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 78,498 78,498 192 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 114,864 114,864 193 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 8,109 8,109 194 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 67,996 67,996 195 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 2,462 2,462 197 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 13,668 13,668 198 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 6,217 6,217 200 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 19,910 19,910 201 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS ................................................................................... 1,788 1,788 202 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 28,237 28,237 203 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 15,725 15,725 204 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 4,316 4,316 

504 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

205 0207610F BATTLEFIELD ABN COMM NODE (BACN) .......................................................................................... 26,946 26,946 206 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,303 4,303 207 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 71,465 71,465 208 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION ....................................................................................................................... 7,446 7,446 209 0208064F OPERATIONAL HQ—CYBER .............................................................................................................. 7,602 7,602 210 0208087F DISTRIBUTED CYBER WARFARE OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 35,178 35,178 211 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 16,609 16,609 212 0208097F JOINT CYBER COMMAND AND CONTROL (JCC2) .............................................................................. 11,603 11,603 213 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP) .................................................................................................................. 84,702 84,702 218 0301004F ADVANCED DATA TRANSPORT FLIGHT TEST ..................................................................................... 0 21,000 21,000 

Accelerate prototype test of 5G ............................................................................................. [21,000 ] 

219 0301025F GEOBASE .......................................................................................................................................... 2,723 2,723 220 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES) ................................................................... 44,190 44,190 226 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR BATTLESPACE AWARENESS ............... 3,575 3,575 227 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 70,173 70,173 228 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 13,543 13,543 229 0303133F HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 15,881 15,881 230 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 27,726 27,726 232 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT—DATA INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 2,210 2,210 234 0304115F MULTI DOMAIN COMMAND AND CONTROL (MDC2) ......................................................................... 150,880 150,880 235 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 102,667 102,667 236 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3,431 3,431 239 0305015F C2 AIR OPERATIONS SUITE—C2 INFO SERVICES ........................................................................... 9,313 9,313 240 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 1,121 1,121 241 0305022F ISR MODERNIZATION & AUTOMATION DVMT (IMAD) ........................................................................ 19,000 –19,000 

Not mature plan ..................................................................................................................... [–19,000 ] 

242 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,544 4,544 

505 

243 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 25,461 25,461 244 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 5,651 5,651 245 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 7,448 7,448 248 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 425 425 249 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 54,546 54,546 250 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 6,858 6,858 252 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 8,728 8,728 253 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 38,939 38,939 255 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 122,909 122,909 256 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 11,787 11,787 257 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 25,009 25,009 258 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 191,733 191,733 259 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 10,757 10,757 260 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 32,567 32,567 261 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 37,774 37,774 262 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 13,515 13,515263 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 4,383 4,383 264 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2) ....................................................................... 2,133 2,133 265 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 8,614 8,614 266 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 140,425 140,425 267 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 10,223 10,223 268 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 25,101 25,101 269 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 8,640 8,640 270 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 5,424 5,424 272 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 20 20 274 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 17,906 17,906 276 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 3,629 3,629 277 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,890 1,890 278 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & OVERHAUL SYSTEM ................................................................................ 10,311 10,311 279 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 16,065 16,065 280 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 539 539 281 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 2,057 2,057 

506 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

282 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 10 10 283 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 2,060 2,060 284 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,809 3,809 285 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 6,476 6,476 286 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,443 1,443 287 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 9,323 9,323 288 0901554F DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACNTNG AND MGT SYS (DEAMS) ................................................................ 46,789 46,789 289 1201017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON NETWORK (GSIN) ....................................................................... 3,647 3,647 290 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 988 988 291 1202140F SERVICE SUPPORT TO SPACECOM ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 11,863 11,863 293 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS TERMINALS (FAB-T) ........................................................................... 197,388 197,388 294 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 61,891 61,891 297 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 4,566 4,566 298 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 43,292 43,292 300 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 10,837 10,837 301 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 42,440 42,440 302 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 14,428 14,428 303 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 72,762 72,762 304 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE CENTER ................................................................................................ 2,653 2,653 306 1203873F BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE RADARS ............................................................................................. 15,881 15,881 308 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 49,300 49,300 309 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 17,834 17,834 310 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 445,302 445,302 311 1206770F ENTERPRISE GROUND SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 138,870 138,870 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 18,029,506 322,000 18,351,506 

Transfer back to base funding .............................................................................................. [322,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 24,529,488 298,033 24,827,521 

507 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 45,616,122 719,653 46,335,775 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 26,000 26,000 2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 432,284 432,284 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 48,874 10,000 58,874 

DEPSCOR ................................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 54,122 54,122 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 92,074 10,000 102,074 

Submarine industrial base workforce training and education .............................................. [10,000 ] 

6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 30,708 2,000 32,708 

Aerospace research and education ........................................................................................ [2,000 ] 

7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 45,238 45,238 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 729,300 22,000 751,300 APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19,306 19,306 9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 97,771 97,771 

11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 52,317 52,317 

12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 62,200 2,000 64,200 

Computer modeling of PFAS .................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

13 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 442,556 442,556 14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 34,588 34,588 15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 202,587 202,587 16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 15,118 10,000 25,118 

Academic cyber institutes ...................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 337,602 337,602 18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 223,976 223,976 19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 332,192 332,192 20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................ 179,096 179,096 

508 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 9,580 9,580 22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 40,569 40,569 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 2,049,458 12,000 2,061,458 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 25,779 25,779 

24 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 25 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 70,517 70,517 26 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 24,970 24,970 28 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................ 340,065 340,065 29 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 14,208 14,208 30 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 20,674 20,674 32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 18,773 18,773 33 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 279,741 279,741 34 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 202,606 202,606 35 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 19,429 19,429 36 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 37,645 37,645 37 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS—MHA ............................................................. 14,668 14,668 38 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 13,600 13,600 40 0603342D8Z DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT (DIU) ................................................................................................... 29,398 7,500 36,898 

Accelerate Artificial Intelligence solutions ............................................................................. [7,500 ] 

41 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ............................................................................................................... 60,000 60,000 42 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 172,486 172,486 43 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 159,688 159,688 44 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 12,063 12,063 45 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 107,359 –17,500 89,859 

509 

Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–17,500 ] 

46 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 2,858 2,858 47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 96,397 96,397 48 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 42,834 42,834 49 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 80,911 –10,000 70,911 

Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 10,817 10,817 51 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 66,157 10,000 76,157 

SERDP ..................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

52 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 171,771 171,771

53 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 4,846 4,846 54 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 128,616 128,616 55 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 232,134 232,134 56 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 512,424 512,424 57 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 163,903 163,903 58 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 13,723 13,723 59 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 15,111 15,111 60 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 47,147 47,147 61 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 19,376 19,376 62 0603924D8Z HIGH ENERGY LASER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............................................................. 85,223 85,223 63 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 175,574 10,000 185,574 

Program increase to support NDS technologies .................................................................... [10,000 ] 

64 0603950D8Z NATIONAL SECURITY INNOVATION NETWORK ................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 65 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 70,536 70,536 

66 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 28,907 28,907 68 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 89,154 89,154 69 1206310SDA SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 20,000 20,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,742,088 0 3,742,088 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

70 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 42,695 42,695 71 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 92,791 92,791 

510 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

72 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA & INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................... 5,659 5,659 73 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 66,572 10,000 76,572 

ESTCP ...................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

74 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 302,761 302,761 75 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 1,156,506 1,156,506 76 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 83,662 83,662 77 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 283,487 283,487 78 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 571,507 571,507 79 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 377,098 125,000 502,098 

Classified ................................................................................................................................ [125,000 ] 

80 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 727,479 727,479 81 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

564,206 564,206 

82 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 51,532 51,532 83 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 56,161 56,161 84 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 22,424 22,424 85 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 128,156 128,156 86 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 300,000 300,000 87 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 395,924 395,924 88 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 554,171 554,171 89 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 10,820 10,820 90 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 11,316 11,316 91 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,365 3,365 92 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 303,458 –34,000 269,458 

Neutral particle beam ............................................................................................................ [–34,000 ] 

93 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 17,816 17,816 95 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE ..................................................................................................................... 157,425 157,425 

511 

96 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 1,312,735 31,000 1,343,735 

Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System ......................................................................................... [81,000 ] Unjustified growth to SCO ..................................................................................................... [–50,000 ] 

97 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 542,421 5,000 547,421 

Trusted and assured microelectronics research .................................................................... [5,000 ] 

98 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 100,957 –50,000 50,957 

Uncoordinated prototyping efforts .......................................................................................... [–50,000 ] 

99 0604341D8Z DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT (DIU) PROTOTYPING ............................................................................ 92,000 92,000 

100 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON DEVELOPMENT ......................... 3,021 3,021 102 0604672C HOMELAND DEFENSE RADAR—HAWAII (HDR-H) ............................................................................. 274,714 274,714 103 0604673C PACIFIC DISCRIMINATING RADAR ..................................................................................................... 6,711 6,711 104 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA) ........................................................ 3,751 3,751 105 0604775BR DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 14,021 14,021 107 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........ 20,062 20,062 108 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR (LRDR) ............................................................................... 136,423 136,423 109 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS ............................................................................ 412,363 412,363 110 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT TEST ................................................ 25,137 25,137 111 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST .............................................................................................................................. 169,822 169,822 112 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR TEST .................................................................................... 105,530 105,530 113 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 38,352 38,352 115 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ............................................................. 98,139 98,139 117 0300206R ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 1,600 1,600 118 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 3,191 3,191 119 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 1,138 1,138 120 1206410SDA SPACE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPING ................................................................ 85,000 –30,000 55,000 

Missile defense studies realignment ..................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

121 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 35,849 35,849 122 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 27,565 108,000 135,565 

HBTSS unfunded requirement ................................................................................................ [108,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ......................................... 9,797,493 165,000 9,962,493 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

512 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

123 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 11,276 11,276 124 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 107,000 107,000 125 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 384,047 384,047 126 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 40,102 40,102 127 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 13,100 13,100 128 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 3,070 3,070 129 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 7,295 7,295 130 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 17,615 17,615 131 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 15,653 15,653 132 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 2,378 2,378 133 0605075D8Z CMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION ...................................................................................................... 1,618 1,618 134 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INITIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM ............................................................. 27,944 27,944 135 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 6,609 6,609 136 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 9,619 9,619 137 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 175,032 175,032 138 0303140BL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 425 425 139 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 1,578 1,578 140 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 4,373 4,373 141 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................... 12,854 12,854 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 841,588 0 841,588 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

142 0603829J JOINT CAPABILITY EXPERIMENTATION .............................................................................................. 13,000 13,000 

143 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 9,724 9,724 144 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 9,593 9,593 145 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 260,267 260,267 146 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 30,834 30,834 

513 

147 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................... 68,498 68,498 148 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 83,091 6,000 89,091 

Cyber range development ....................................................................................................... [6,000 ] 

149 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 18,079 –5,000 13,079 

Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

150 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 70,038 70,038 152 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 37,140 –5,000 32,140 

Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

153 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 4,759 4,759 154 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 8,307 8,307 155 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 9,441 9,441 156 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 1,700 1,700 157 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 110,363 110,363 166 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 3,568 3,568 167 0605797D8Z MAINTAINING TECHNOLOGY ADVANTAGE ......................................................................................... 19,936 19,936 168 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 16,875 16,875 169 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 57,716 57,716 170 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 34,448 34,448 171 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 22,203 22,203 172 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 13,208 13,208 173 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ—DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ...................................... 3,027 3,027 174 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 8,017 8,017 175 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 3,194 3,194 176 0606589D8W DEFENSE DIGITAL SERVICE (DDS) DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT ........................................................... 1,000 5,000 6,000 

Increase .................................................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

179 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 3,037 3,037 180 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 9,216 9,216 183 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 553 553 184 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 1,014 1,014 185 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 58,667 58,667 187 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES AND INNOVATION INVESTMENTS ........................................................ 21,081 21,081 189 0307588D8Z ALGORITHMIC WARFARE CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS ..................................................................... 221,235 221,235 

514 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

191 0804768J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)—NON-MHA ............. 40,073 40,073 192 0808709SE DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (DEOMI) ................................................ 100 100 193 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 27,065 27,065 194 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER (JSP) ...................................................................................................... 3,090 3,090 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 51,471 51,471 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 1,354,628 1,000 1,355,628 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

195 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 7,945 7,945 

196 0604532K JOINT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ...................................................................................................... 208,834 208,834 197 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,947 1,947 198 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 310 310 199 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 10,051 38,500 48,551 

Advanced systems manufacturing ......................................................................................... [5,000 ]Composite manufacturing technologies ................................................................................. [15,000 ] Printed circuit boards ............................................................................................................. [15,000 ] Rare earth element production .............................................................................................. [3,500 ] 

200 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 12,734 12,734 201 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 14,800 14,800 202 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 54,023 54,023 203 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 4,537 4,537 204 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 64,122 64,122 210 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 15,798 15,798 211 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 11,166 11,166 212 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 17,383 17,383 214 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 54,516 54,516 215 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 67,631 67,631 

515 

216 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 289,080 –1,882 287,198 

Sharkseer transfer .................................................................................................................. [–1,882 ] 

217 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 42,796 1,882 44,678 

Sharkseer transfer .................................................................................................................. [1,882 ] 

218 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 25,218 25,218 219 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 21,698 21,698 220 0303228K JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) ..................................................................................... 18,077 18,077 222 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 44,001 44,001 

228 0305128V SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 2,400 15,000 17,400 

Local criminal records access ............................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

232 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 6,301 6,301 233 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 21,384 21,384 235 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 6,359 6,359 238 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 2,981 2,981 241 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 1,964 1,964 242 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,221 2,221 250 0708012K LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 1,361 1,361 251 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS ............................................................................................................ 1,770 1,770 252 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM .............................................................................. 3,679 3,679 254 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 20,697 20,697 256 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 245,795 8,800 254,595 

UPL Future vertical lift ........................................................................................................... [8,800 ] 

257 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 15,484 15,484 258 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 166,922 166,922 259 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 62,332 62,332 260 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 21,805 21,805 261 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR ................................................................................................................................ 37,377 37,377 262 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 11,150 11,150 263 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 72,626 72,626 264 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 5,363 5,363 265 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 12,962 12,962 266 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 6,158 6,158 

516 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

300 0604011D8Z NEXT GENERATION INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (5G) ....................................... 0 25,000 25,000

DOD Spectrum Sharing program ............................................................................................ [25,000 ] 

999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,116,640 426,000 4,542,640 

Transfer back to base funding .............................................................................................. [426,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 5,832,398 513,300 6,345,698 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 24,346,953 713,300 25,060,253 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 93,291 93,291 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 69,172 69,172 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 58,737 58,737 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 221,200 0 221,200 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 221,200 221,200 TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 102,647,545 1,375,568 104,023,113 

517 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

74 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ......................................................................... 500 500 

79 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 85 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................... 1,085 1,085 95 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) .................................................................. 6,000 6,000 97 0604119A ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING ...................................................... 4,529 4,529 

105 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4) .......................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 17,114 0 17,114 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

151 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................... 11,770 11,770 

159 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 77,420 77,420 163 0605203A ARMY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................... 19,527 19,527 174 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 3,200 3,200 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 111,917 0 111,917 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

200 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN INTEL MODERNIZATION ........................................................................ 1,875 1,875 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 1,875 0 1,875 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

238 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 22,904 22,904 

246 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 34,100 34,100 

518 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

247 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 14,000 14,000 252 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 2,214 2,214 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 73,218 0 73,218 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 204,124 0 204,124 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 2,400 2,400 

38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 22,000 22,000 57 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 14,178 14,178 69 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 1,428 1,428 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 40,006 0 40,006 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

143 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) ...................................................................................... 1,122 1,122 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 1,122 0 1,122 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

228 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 

999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 108,282 108,282 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 123,282 0 123,282 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 164,410 0 164,410 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

519 

48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. 26,450 26,450 72 1206857F SPACE RAPID CAPABILITIES OFFICE ................................................................................................... 17,885 17,885 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 44,335 0 44,335 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

177 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED ELECTRONIC WARFARE ................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 

217 0208288F INTEL DATA APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 400,713 –322,000 78,713 

Transfer back to base funding ................................................................................................ [–322,000] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 405,913 –322,000 83,913 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 450,248 –322,000 128,248 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW APPLIED RESEARCH 

10 0602134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT ADVANCED STUDIES ........................................................................ 1,677 1,677 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... 1,677 0 1,677 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

25 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................. 25,230 25,230 

27 0603134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT SIMULATION ..................................................................................... 49,528 49,528 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 74,758 0 74,758 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING ........ 113,590 113,590 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ............................................ 113,590 0 113,590 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

258 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 726 726 

259 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 261 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR .................................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 626,199 –426,000 200,199 

520 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Transfer back to base funding ................................................................................................ [–426,000] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 637,925 –426,000 211,925 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 827,950 –426,000 401,950 TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 1,646,732 –748,000 898,732 

(521) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

522 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 1,735,922 1,735,922 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,735,922 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 0 127,815 127,815 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [127,815 ] 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 0 716,356 716,356 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [716,356 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 890,891 890,891 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [890,891 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 0 1,232,477 1,232,477 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,232,477 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 1,355,606 1,355,606 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,355,606 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 408,031 3,474,284 3,882,315 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [3,474,284 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 417,069 29,200 446,269 

UPL MDTF INDOPACOM ................................................................................................................................................... [29,200 ] 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 0 1,633,327 1,633,327 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,633,327 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 0 7,951,473 7,951,473 

523 

Historical underexecution ............................................................................................................................................... [–46,000 ] Revised MHPI cost share ............................................................................................................................................... [–50,460 ] Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [8,047,933 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 4,326,840 4,326,840 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 405,612 405,612 160 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 251,511 251,511 170 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 146,358 7,800 154,158 

JIOCEUR JAC Molesworth ................................................................................................................................................ [7,800 ] 

180 US SOUTHERN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 191,840 191,840 190 US FORCES KOREA .................................................................................................................................................................. 57,603 57,603 200 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 423,156 423,156 210 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSECURITY .......................................................................................................................... 551,185 551,185 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 7,179,205 19,155,151 26,334,356 MOBILIZATION 

220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 380,577 380,577 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 362,942 362,942 240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 4,637 4,637 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 748,156 0 748,156 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

250 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 157,175 157,175 

260 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 55,739 55,739 270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 62,300 62,300 280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 538,357 538,357 290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 969,813 969,813 300 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,234,049 1,234,049 310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 218,338 218,338 320 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 554,659 554,659 330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 716,056 –80,000 636,056 

524 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Unjustified growth for advertising ................................................................................................................................. [–70,000 ] Unjustified growth for recruiting ................................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

340 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 185,034 185,034 350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 214,275 214,275 360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 147,647 147,647 370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS .......................................................................................................................... 173,812 173,812 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 5,227,254 –80,000 5,147,254 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 559,229 559,229 

400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 929,944 929,944 410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 629,981 629,981 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 458,771 458,771 430 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 428,768 428,768 440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,512,736 1,512,736 450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 272,738 272,738 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 391,869 –28,000 363,869 

Historical underexecution ............................................................................................................................................... [–28,000 ] 

470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,901,165 1,901,165 480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 198,765 –15,000 183,765 

Historical underexecution ............................................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 226,248 226,248 500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ................................................................................................................... 315,489 315,489 510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................. 427,254 427,254 520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 43,248 43,248 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,347,053 1,347,053 

525 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 9,643,258 –43,000 9,600,258 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 103,800 103,800 

Cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects .......................................................................................... [3,000 ] 

Single family home pilot program ................................................................................................................................. [1,000 ] THAAD sustainment program transfer from MDA .......................................................................................................... [99,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 103,800 103,800 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 22,797,873 19,135,951 41,933,824 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 0 11,927 11,927 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [11,927 ] 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 0 533,015 533,015 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [533,015 ] 

030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 119,517 119,517 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [119,517 ] 

040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 0 550,468 550,468 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [550,468 ] 

050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 86,670 86,670 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [86,670 ] 

060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 390,061 390,061 070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 101,890 101,890 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 0 48,503 48,503 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [48,503 ] 

090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 0 598,907 598,907 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [598,907 ] 

100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 444,376 444,376 

526 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 22,095 22,095 120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 3,288 3,288 130 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSECURITY .......................................................................................................................... 7,655 7,655 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 969,365 1,949,007 2,918,372 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

140 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 14,533 14,533 

150 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17,231 17,231 160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 14,304 14,304 170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,129 6,129 180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 58,541 58,541 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 110,738 0 110,738 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 1,080,103 1,949,007 3,029,110 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 805,671 805,671 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [805,671 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 0 195,334 195,334 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [195,334 ] 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 0 771,048 771,048 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [771,048 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 94,726 94,726 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [94,726 ] 

527 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 0 33,696 33,696 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [33,696 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 981,819 981,819 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [981,819 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 743,206 743,206 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 50,963 50,963 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 0 258,278 258,278 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [258,278 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 0 1,153,076 1,153,076 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,153,076 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 1,113,475 7,200 1,120,675 

Damage assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... [7,200 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 1,001,042 1,001,042 130 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 8,448 8,448 140 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSECURITY .......................................................................................................................... 7,768 7,768 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,924,902 4,300,848 7,225,750 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 9,890 9,890 

160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 71,070 71,070 170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 68,213 68,213 180 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,628 8,628 190 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 250,376 –3,000 247,376 

Unjustified growth for marketing ................................................................................................................................... [–1,500 ] Unjustified growth for recruiting ................................................................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

200 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 2,676 2,676 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 410,853 –3,000 407,853 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 3,335,755 4,297,848 7,633,603 

528 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 0 2,877,800 2,877,800 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [2,877,800 ] 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,284,828 2,284,828 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 0 59,299 59,299 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [59,299 ] 

040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 155,896 155,896 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 719,107 719,107 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 0 1,154,181 1,154,181 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,154,181 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 60,402 60,402 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,241,421 1,241,421 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 0 4,097,262 4,097,262 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [4,097,262 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 1,031,792 1,031,792 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 8,875,298 8,875,298 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [8,061,298 ] UPL SSN and Ship maintenance increase ..................................................................................................................... [814,000 ] 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 0 2,073,641 2,073,641 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [2,073,641 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 1,378,856 1,378,856 140 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 276,245 276,245 150 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 675,209 675,209 160 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 389,516 389,516 170 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,536,310 1,536,310 180 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 161,579 161,579 

529 

190 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 59,521 59,521 200 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 93,978 5,000 98,978 

Posture site assessments INDOPACOM .......................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

210 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 8,641 8,641 220 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 496,385 496,385 230 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,423,339 1,423,339 240 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 924,069 924,069 250 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 540,210 540,210 260 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,131,627 1,131,627 270 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 3,029,634 3,029,634 280 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 4,433,783 4,433,783 

Revised MHPI cost share ............................................................................................................................................... [18,840 ] 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [4,414,943 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 17,618,565 23,576,264 41,194,829 

MOBILIZATION 

290 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 942,902 942,902 

300 READY RESERVE FORCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 352,044 352,044 310 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 427,555 427,555 320 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 137,597 137,597 330 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 24,604 24,604 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,884,702 0 1,884,702 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

340 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 150,765 150,765 

350 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 11,584 11,584 360 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 159,133 159,133 370 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 911,316 911,316 380 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 185,211 185,211 390 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 267,224 267,224 

530 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

400 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 209,252 –20,000 189,252 

Unjustified growth .......................................................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

410 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 88,902 88,902 420 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 67,492 67,492 430 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55,164 55,164 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 2,106,043 –20,000 2,086,043 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

440 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,143,358 –51,000 1,092,358 

Decrease ......................................................................................................................................................................... [–1,000 ] 

Unjustified audit growth ................................................................................................................................................ [–50,000 ] 

450 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 178,342 178,342 460 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 418,413 418,413 490 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 157,465 157,465 510 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 485,397 5,000 490,397 

REPO ............................................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

520 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 654,137 654,137 530 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 718,061 718,061 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 588,235 3,300 591,535 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [3,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,343,408 –42,700 4,300,708 UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

Cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects .......................................................................................... [3,000 ] 

531 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 25,952,718 23,516,564 49,469,282 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 968,224 968,224 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [968,224 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,278,533 1,278,533 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 232,991 232,991 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [232,991 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 100,396 100,396 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [100,396 ] 

050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 203,580 203,580 060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 1,115,742 443,292 1,559,034 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [443,292 ] 

070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 2,253,776 2,253,776 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [2,253,776 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,597,855 3,998,679 6,596,534 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

080 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 21,240 21,240 

090 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,168 1,168 100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 106,601 106,601 

110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 49,095 49,095 120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 407,315 407,315 130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 210,475 210,475 140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 42,810 42,810 150 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25,183 25,183 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 863,887 0 863,887 

532 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 29,894 29,894 

170 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 384,352 384,352 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 52,057 52,057 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 466,303 0 466,303 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

Cyber operations-peculiar capability development ........................................................................................................ [3,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 3,928,045 4,001,679 7,929,724 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 0 654,220 654,220 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [654,220 ] 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 8,767 8,767 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 0 108,236 108,236 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [108,236 ] 

040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 463 463 050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 26,014 26,014 060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 583 583 

533 

070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,883 17,883 080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 128,079 128,079 090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 356 356 100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 26,133 26,133 110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 35,397 35,397 120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 101,376 101,376 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [101,376 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 243,675 863,832 1,107,507 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,888 1,888 

140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 12,778 12,778 150 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 2,943 2,943 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 17,609 0 17,609 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 261,284 863,832 1,125,116 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 106,484 106,484 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [106,484 ] 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 18,429 18,429 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [18,429 ] 

030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 47,516 47,516 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 106,073 106,073 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [106,073 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 47,516 230,986 278,502 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

534 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

050 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13,574 13,574 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 13,574 0 13,574 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 61,090 230,986 292,076 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 729,127 729,127 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,318,770 1,318,770 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,486,790 1,486,790 040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 0 3,334,792 3,334,792 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [3,334,792 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 3,675,824 466,611 4,142,435 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [466,611 ] 

060 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 0 228,811 228,811 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [228,811 ] 

070 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 0 8,329,364 8,329,364 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [8,329,364 ] 

080 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 4,048,773 4,048,773 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [4,048,773 ] 

090 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 7,191,582 7,191,582 

Revised MHPI cost share ............................................................................................................................................... [–32,400 ] Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [7,223,982 ] 

100 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 964,553 964,553 110 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 1,032,307 1,032,307 120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 670,076 670,076 

535 

140 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 179,980 179,980 150 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 467,990 467,990 160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 184,655 184,655 170 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 478,357 478,357 180 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 323,121 24,800 347,921 

Accelerate development Cyber National Mission Force capabilities ............................................................................. [1,500 ] 

Cyber National Mission Force Mobile & Modular Hunt Forward Kit .............................................................................. [5,300 ] ETERNALDARKNESS ......................................................................................................................................................... [18,000 ] 

190 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 160,989 160,989 200 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6,225 6,225 210 US TRANSCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 544 544 220 CENTCOM CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2,073 2,073 230 USSPACECOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 70,588 70,588 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,322,944 1,322,944 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 13,074,913 23,624,733 36,699,646 

MOBILIZATION 

240 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,158,142 1,158,142 

250 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 138,672 138,672 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,296,814 0 1,296,814 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

260 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 130,835 130,835 

270 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 26,021 26,021 280 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 121,391 121,391 290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 454,539 454,539 300 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 600,565 600,565 310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 282,788 282,788 320 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 123,988 123,988 330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 167,731 –6,000 161,731 

536 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Unjustified growth .......................................................................................................................................................... [–6,000 ] 

340 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4,576 4,576 350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 211,911 211,911 

360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 219,021 219,021 370 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 62,092 62,092 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 2,405,458 –6,000 2,399,458 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

380 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 664,926 664,926 

390 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 101,483 101,483 400 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 892,480 892,480 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 152,532 152,532 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1,254,089 1,254,089 430 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 30,070 30,070 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 136,110 136,110 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,269,624 1,269,624 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,501,314 0 4,501,314 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 72,436 72,436 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 72,436 0 72,436 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE .............................................................................................................. 72,436 0 72,436 

537 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

Cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects .......................................................................................... [3,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 3,000 3,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 21,278,499 23,621,733 44,900,232 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,781,413 1,781,413 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 209,650 209,650 030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 0 494,235 494,235 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [494,235 ] 

040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 128,746 128,746 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 0 256,512 256,512 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [256,512 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 414,626 414,626 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [414,626 ] 

070 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,673 1,673 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,121,482 1,165,373 3,286,855 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

080 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 69,436 69,436 

090 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 22,124 22,124 

100 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 10,946 10,946 110 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 7,009 7,009 120 AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 448 448 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 109,963 0 109,963 

538 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 2,231,445 1,165,373 3,396,818 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,497,967 2,497,967 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 600,377 600,377 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 0 879,467 879,467 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [879,467 ] 

040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 400,734 400,734 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 0 1,299,089 1,299,089 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [1,299,089 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0 911,775 911,775 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [911,775 ] 

070 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 0 24,742 24,742 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [24,742 ] 

080 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 25,507 25,507 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,524,585 3,115,073 6,639,658 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

090 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47,215 47,215 

100 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 40,356 40,356 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 87,571 0 87,571 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 3,612,156 3,115,073 6,727,229 

539 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 409,542 409,542 

020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CE2T2 ............................................................................................................................................ 579,179 579,179 

030 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CYBER ............................................................................................................................................ 24,598 24,598 040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COMBAT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 1,075,762 1,075,762 050 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 14,409 14,409 060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND INTELLIGENCE .................................................................................................................... 501,747 501,747 070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................... 559,300 559,300 080 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................... 177,928 177,928 090 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................... 925,262 925,262 100 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND THEATER FORCES ............................................................................................................... 2,764,738 2,764,738 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 7,032,465 0 7,032,465 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

120 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 180,250 180,250 

130 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 100,610 100,610 140 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 33,967 33,967 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 314,827 0 314,827 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

160 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 165,707 29,300 195,007 

IRT Increase .................................................................................................................................................................... [14,300 ] 

Starbase .......................................................................................................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

180 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 627,467 627,467 190 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY—CYBER ........................................................................................................................ 3,362 3,362 200 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,438,068 1,438,068 210 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY—CYBER ........................................................................................................... 24,391 24,391 220 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 892,438 892,438 

540 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

230 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 2,012,885 –5,000 2,007,885 

MilCloud .......................................................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

240 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY—CYBER .............................................................................................................. 601,223 35,137 636,360 

Sharkseer transfer .......................................................................................................................................................... [35,137 ] 

270 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 34,632 34,632 280 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 415,699 415,699 290 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 202,792 202,792 300 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 144,881 144,881 310 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 696,884 696,884 

Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation ....................................................................................................................... [11,000 ] Security cooperation account ......................................................................................................................................... [–11,000 ] 

320 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 889,664 10,000 899,664 

Consolidated Adjudication Facility ................................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

340 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE—CYBER ................................................................................................................................... 9,220 9,220 360 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER .......................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 370 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 35,626 35,626 380 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 568,133 568,133 400 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY—CYBER ................................................................................................................... 13,339 13,339 410 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,932,226 50,000 2,982,226 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities ........................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............................................................................................ [40,000 ] 

420 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 522,529 –99,800 422,729 

THAAD program transfer to Army ................................................................................................................................... [–99,800 ] 

450 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 59,513 59,513 460 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 1,604,738 74,000 1,678,738 

Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup ................................................................................................................................................ [15,000 ] CDC study ....................................................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

541 

Emerging contaminants ................................................................................................................................................. [1,000 ] Industrial policy implementation of EO13806 ............................................................................................................... [15,000 ] Interstate compacts for licensure and credentialing .................................................................................................... [4,000 ] National Commission on Military Aviation Safety ......................................................................................................... [3,000 ] National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service ................................................................................... [1,000 ] Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration ................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

470 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE—CYBER ................................................................................................................ 48,783 48,783 480 SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................... 44,750 44,750 500 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 324,001 5,000 329,001 

Defense Digital Service Hires ......................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,736,098 45,363 15,781,461 

Sharkseer transfer .......................................................................................................................................................... [–35,137 ] Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [80,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 30,052,049 144,000 30,196,049 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 37,399,341 144,000 37,543,341 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 14,771 14,771 

SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ............................................................................. 14,771 0 14,771 

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID 

010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 108,600 108,600 

SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ......................................................................................... 108,600 0 108,600 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 338,700 338,700 

SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 338,700 0 338,700 

542 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD 

010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ....................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 400,000 

SUBTOTAL ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ..................................................................................................................................... 400,000 0 400,000 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY 

050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 207,518 207,518 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................. 207,518 0 207,518 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY 

060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 335,932 335,932 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................. 335,932 0 335,932 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE 

070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 302,744 302,744 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................ 302,744 0 302,744 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE 

080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 9,105 9,105 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ............................................................................................................ 9,105 0 9,105 

543 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES 

090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 216,499 216,499 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ..................................................................................... 216,499 0 216,499 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 1,933,869 0 1,933,869 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –590,000 –590,000 

Foreign currency fluctuation fund reduction ................................................................................................................. [–607,000 ] 

JROTC .............................................................................................................................................................................. [25,000 ] Printing inefficiencies .................................................................................................................................................... [–8,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –590,000 –590,000 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 –590,000 –590,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 123,944,614 81,452,046 205,396,660 

544 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,146,796 –1,735,922 1,410,874 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,735,922 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 127,815 –127,815 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–127,815 ] 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 742,858 –716,356 26,502 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–716,356 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 3,165,381 –890,891 2,274,490 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–890,891 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,368,765 –1,232,477 136,288 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,232,477 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,655,846 –1,355,606 300,240 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,355,606 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 6,889,293 –3,474,284 3,415,009 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–3,474,284 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 29,985 29,985 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,720,258 –1,633,327 86,931 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,633,327 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 8,163,639 –8,047,933 115,706 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–8,047,933 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 72,657 72,657 130 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 6,397,586 6,397,586 140 COMMANDER’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

545 

150 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,048,896 1,048,896 160 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 203,174 203,174 170 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 173,676 173,676 200 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 188,529 188,529 210 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES—CYBERSECURITY .......................................................................................................................... 5,682 5,682 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 35,105,836 –19,214,611 15,891,225 

MOBILIZATION 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 131,954 131,954 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 131,954 0 131,954 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 721,014 721,014 

400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 66,845 66,845 410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 9,309 9,309 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 23,653 23,653 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 109,019 109,019 490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 251,355 251,355 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,568,564 1,568,564 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 2,749,759 0 2,749,759 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 37,987,549 –19,214,611 18,772,938 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 11,927 –11,927 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–11,927 ] 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 553,455 –533,015 20,440 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–533,015 ] 

546 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 119,517 –119,517 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–119,517 ] 

040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 550,468 –550,468 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–550,468 ] 

050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 86,670 –86,670 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–86,670 ] 

060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 689 689 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 48,503 –48,503 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–48,503 ] 

090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 615,370 –598,907 16,463 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–598,907 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,986,599 –1,949,007 37,592 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 1,986,599 –1,949,007 37,592 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 851,567 –805,671 45,896 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–805,671 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 195,514 –195,334 180 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–195,334 ] 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 774,030 –771,048 2,982 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–771,048 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 95,274 –94,726 548 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–94,726 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 33,696 –33,696 0 

547 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–33,696 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 991,048 –981,819 9,229 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–981,819 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 1,584 1,584 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 258,278 –258,278 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–258,278 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,175,139 –1,153,076 22,063 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,153,076 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 606 606 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 4,376,736 –4,293,648 83,088 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 203 203 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 203 0 203 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 4,376,939 –4,293,648 83,291 AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY 

090 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,313,047 1,313,047 

100 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 37,152 37,152 110 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 120,868 120,868 120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 118,591 118,591 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,589,658 0 1,589,658 AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE 

130 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 422,806 422,806 

140 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,358 2,358 150 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 127,081 127,081 

548 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

160 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 108,112 108,112 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE .................................................................................................................................... 660,357 0 660,357 

AFGHAN AIR FORCE 

170 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 893,829 893,829 

180 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 8,611 8,611 190 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 566,967 566,967 200 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 356,108 356,108 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,825,515 0 1,825,515 

AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES 

210 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 437,909 437,909 

220 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 21,131 21,131 230 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 153,806 153,806 240 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 115,602 115,602 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES .................................................................................................................... 728,448 0 728,448 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................................................................................................................... 4,803,978 0 4,803,978 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 5,682,156 –2,877,800 2,804,356 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–2,877,800 ] 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 60,115 –59,299 816 

549 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–59,299 ] 

040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 9,582 9,582 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 197,262 197,262 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 1,322,427 –1,154,181 168,246 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,154,181 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 3,594 3,594 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 10,618 10,618 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 5,582,370 –4,097,262 1,485,108 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–4,097,262 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 20,334 20,334 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 10,426,913 –8,061,298 2,365,615 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–8,061,298 ] 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 2,073,641 –2,073,641 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–2,073,641 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 58,092 58,092 140 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 18,000 18,000 150 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 16,984 16,984 160 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 29,382 29,382 170 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 608,870 608,870 180 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 7,799 7,799 200 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 24,800 24,800 220 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 363 363 240 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 486,188 486,188 250 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 12,189 12,189 270 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 68,667 68,667 280 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,634,042 –4,414,943 219,099 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–4,414,943 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 31,354,388 –22,738,424 8,615,964 

MOBILIZATION 

320 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 17,580 17,580 

550 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

330 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 190,000 190,000 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 207,580 0 207,580 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

370 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 52,161 52,161 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 52,161 0 52,161 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

440 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8,475 8,475 

460 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 7,653 7,653 490 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 70,683 70,683 520 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 11,130 11,130 530 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 1,559 1,559 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21,054 –3,300 17,754 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–3,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 120,554 –3,300 117,254 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 31,734,683 –22,741,724 8,992,959 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,682,877 –968,224 714,653 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–968,224 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 232,508 232,508 

551 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 287,092 –232,991 54,101 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–232,991 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 100,396 –100,396 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–100,396 ] 

050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 443,292 –103,292 340,000 

Disaster recovery increase ............................................................................................................................................. [340,000 ] Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–443,292 ] 

070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,278,346 –2,253,776 24,570 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–2,253,776 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,026,511 –3,658,679 1,367,832 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 30,459 30,459 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 30,459 0 30,459 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 61,400 61,400 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 5,100 5,100 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 66,500 0 66,500 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 5,123,470 –3,658,679 1,464,791 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 654,220 –654,220 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–654,220 ] 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 510 510 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 119,864 –108,236 11,628 

552 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–108,236 ] 

080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 10,898 10,898 120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 101,376 –101,376 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–101,376 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 886,868 –863,832 23,036 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 886,868 –863,832 23,036 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 114,111 –106,484 7,627 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–106,484 ] 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 18,429 –18,429 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–18,429 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 107,153 –106,073 1,080 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–106,073 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 239,693 –230,986 8,707 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 239,693 –230,986 8,707 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 163,632 163,632 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,049,170 1,049,170 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 111,808 111,808 

553 

040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 3,743,491 –3,334,792 408,699 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–3,334,792 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 613,875 –126,611 487,264 

Disaster recovery increase ............................................................................................................................................. [340,000 ] Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–466,611 ] 

060 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 238,872 –228,811 10,061 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–228,811 ] 

070 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 9,282,958 –8,329,364 953,594 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–8,329,364 ] 

080 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 6,544,039 –4,048,773 2,495,266 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–4,048,773 ] 

090 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,762,102 –7,223,982 1,538,120 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–7,223,982 ] 

100 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 13,863 13,863 110 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 272,020 272,020 120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 17,657 17,657 130 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 36,098 36,098 140 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 391 391 150 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 39,990 39,990 160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 725 725 170 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 926 926 180 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35,189 35,189 190 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 163,015 163,015 200 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19,000 19,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 31,108,821 –23,292,333 7,816,488 

MOBILIZATION 

240 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,271,439 1,271,439 

250 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 109,682 109,682 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,381,121 0 1,381,121 

554 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

260 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 200 200 

270 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 352 352 290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 26,802 26,802 

300 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 844 844 310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 1,199 1,199 320 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,320 1,320 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 30,717 0 30,717 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

380 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 164,701 164,701 

390 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 11,608 11,608 

400 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4,814 4,814 410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 145,204 145,204 420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 98,841 98,841 460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 29,890 29,890 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 52,995 52,995 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 508,053 0 508,053 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 33,028,712 –23,292,333 9,736,379 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 518,423 –494,235 24,188 

555 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–494,235 ] 

050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 256,512 –256,512 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–256,512 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 420,196 –414,626 5,570 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–414,626 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,195,131 –1,165,373 29,758 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 1,195,131 –1,165,373 29,758 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3,666 3,666 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 946,411 –879,467 66,944 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–879,467 ] 

050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 1,392,709 –1,299,089 93,620 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–1,299,089 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 924,454 –911,775 12,679 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–911,775 ] 

070 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 24,742 –24,742 0 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–24,742 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,291,982 –3,115,073 176,909 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 3,291,982 –3,115,073 176,909 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 21,866 21,866 

020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CE2T2 ............................................................................................................................................ 6,634 6,634 040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COMBAT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 1,121,580 1,121,580 060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND INTELLIGENCE .................................................................................................................... 1,328,201 1,328,201 

556 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................... 399,845 399,845 090 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................... 138,458 138,458 100 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND THEATER FORCES ............................................................................................................... 808,729 808,729 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,825,313 0 3,825,313 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

180 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,810 1,810 

200 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 21,723 21,723 230 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 81,133 81,133 240 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY—CYBER .............................................................................................................. 3,455 3,455 270 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 196,124 196,124 290 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 14,377 14,377 310 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 1,927,217 50,000 1,977,217 

Security cooperation account, unjustified growth ......................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] Transfer from CTEF Iraq ................................................................................................................................................. [100,000 ] Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative ........................................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

380 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 317,558 317,558 410 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 31,620 31,620 460 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 16,666 16,666 500 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 6,331 6,331 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,005,285 –80,500 1,924,785 

Transfer back to base funding ...................................................................................................................................... [–80,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 4,623,299 –30,500 4,592,799 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 8,448,612 –30,500 8,418,112 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 133,104,216 –80,555,766 52,548,450 

(557) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

558 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 143,476,503 –918,980 142,557,523 

Historical under execution .................................................................................................................................. [–918,980 ] 

SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 143,476,503 –918,980 142,557,523 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 7,816,815 7,816,815 SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................... 7,816,815 0 7,816,815 

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 151,293,318 –918,980 150,374,338 

559 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4,485,808 4,485,808 SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4,485,808 0 4,485,808 TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 4,485,808 0 4,485,808 

(561) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

562 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 57,467 57,467 020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT—ARMY ......................................................................................................................................... 32,130 32,130 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 89,597 0 89,597 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

020 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................................ 92,499 10,000 102,499 

Energy optimization initiatives ................................................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................ 92,499 10,000 102,499 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT—DEF ................................................................................................................................ 49,085 49,085 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................................... 49,085 0 49,085 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ........................................................................................................................................ 995,030 995,030 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................................... 995,030 0 995,030 

WCF, DEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AGENCY 

010 DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AGENCY ............................................................................................. 200,000 200,000 

563 

SUBTOTAL WCF, DEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AGENCY ............................................................................. 200,000 0 200,000 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1,426,211 10,000 1,436,211 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION 

1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 107,351 107,351 

2 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 875,930 875,930 3 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,218 2,218 

SUBTOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 985,499 0 985,499 TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 985,499 0 985,499 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 COUNTER-NARCOTICS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 581,739 581,739 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 581,739 0 581,739 

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM 

020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 120,922 120,922 

SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 120,922 0 120,922 

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM 

030 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 91,370 91,370 

SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 91,370 0 91,370 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS 

040 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS ................................................................................................................... 5,371 5,371 

SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS ................................................................................................. 5,371 0 5,371 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 799,402 0 799,402 

564 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 359,022 359,022 

020 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—CYBER ......................................................................................................................... 1,179 1,179 030 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,965 2,965 040 PROCUREMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 333 333 

SUBTOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 363,499 0 363,499 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 363,499 0 363,499 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,570,615 9,570,615 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,041,006 11,000 15,052,006 

Contraceptive cost-sharing ..................................................................................................................................... [11,000 ] 

030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 1,975,536 1,975,536 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 2,004,588 2,004,588 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 333,246 333,246 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 793,810 793,810 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2,093,289 2,093,289 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 31,812,090 11,000 31,823,090 RDT&E 

080 R&D RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................ 12,621 12,621 090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 84,266 84,266 

100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 279,766 279,766 110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 128,055 128,055 

565 

120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 143,527 143,527 130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 67,219 67,219 140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 16,819 16,819 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 732,273 0 732,273 

PROCUREMENT 

150 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................................................. 26,135 26,135 

160 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 225,774 225,774 170 PROC JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 314 314 180 PROC MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM—DESKTOP TO DATACENTER ....................................................................................... 73,010 73,010 190 PROC DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODERNIZATION .................................................................................. 129,091 129,091 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 454,324 0 454,324 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 32,998,687 11,000 33,009,687 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 36,573,298 21,000 36,594,298 

566 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT—ARMY ......................................................................................................................................... 20,100 20,100 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 20,100 0 20,100 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 20,100 0 20,100 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 COUNTER-NARCOTICS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 163,596 163,596 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 163,596 0 163,596 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 163,596 0 163,596 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 24,254 24,254 

SUBTOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 24,254 0 24,254 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 24,254 0 24,254 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 57,459 57,459 

567 

020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 287,487 287,487 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 347,746 0 347,746 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 347,746 0 347,746 

COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) 

010 IRAQ .................................................................................................................................................................................. 745,000 –100,000 645,000 

Transfer to DSCA Security Cooperation ................................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] 

020 SYRIA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 300,000 

SUBTOTAL COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) ............................................................................................ 1,045,000 –100,000 945,000 

TOTAL COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) ................................................................................................... 1,045,000 –100,000 945,000 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1,600,696 –100,000 1,500,696 

(569) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

570 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY Army Alabama Redstone Arsenal Aircraft and Flight Equipment Building .................... 38,000 38,000 Army Colorado Fort Carson Company Operations Facility ..................................... 71,000 71,000 Army Georgia Fort Gordon Cyber Instructional Fac (Admin/Command) .............. 107,000 –40,000 67,000 Army Georgia Hunter Army Airfield Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 62,000 62,000 Army Hawaii Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility, Incr 5 ...................... 60,000 60,000 Army Honduras Soto Cano AB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 34,000 34,000 Army Japan Kadena Air Base Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 0 15,000 15,000 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell General Purpose Maintenance Shop .......................... 51,000 51,000 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Automated Infantry Platoon Battle Course ............... 7,100 7,100 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Easements ................................................................. 3,200 3,200 Army Massachusetts Soldier Systems Center 

Natick 

Human Engineering Lab ............................................ 50,000 50,000 

Army Michigan Detroit Arsenal Substation .................................................................. 24,000 24,000 Army New York Fort Drum Railhead ..................................................................... 0 21,000 21,000 Army New York Fort Drum Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ............................. 23,000 23,000 Army North Carolina Fort Bragg Dining Facility ............................................................ 12,500 12,500 Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph2 ............. 73,000 73,000 Army Pennsylvania Carlisle Barracks General Instruction Building ..................................... 98,000 98,000 Army South Carolina Fort Jackson Reception Complex, Ph2 ............................................ 54,000 54,000 

571 

Army Texas Corpus Christi Army 

Depot 

Powertrain Facility (Machine Shop) ........................... 86,000 86,000 

Army Texas Fort Hood Vehicle Bridge ............................................................ 0 18,500 18,500 Army Texas Fort Hood Barracks ..................................................................... 32,000 32,000 Army Virginia Fort Belvoir Secure Operations and Admin Facility ...................... 60,000 60,000 Army Virginia Joint Base Langley-Eustis Adv Individual Training Barracks Cplx, Ph4 ............. 55,000 55,000 Army Washington Joint Base Lewis-McChord Information Systems Facility ..................................... 46,000 46,000 Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 70,600 70,600 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Host Nation Support .................................................. 31,000 31,000 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 94,099 94,099 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Worldwide Construction ......................... 211,000 –211,000 0 

SUBTOTAL ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,453,499 –196,500 1,256,999 

NAVY Navy Arizona MCAS Yuma Bachelor Enlisted Quarters—2+2 Replacement ...... 0 99,600 99,600 Navy Arizona Yuma Hangar 95 Renovation & Addition ............................ 90,160 90,160 Navy Australia Darwin Aircraft Parking Apron ............................................... 0 50,000 50,000 Navy Bahrain Island SW Asia Electrical System Upgrade ........................................ 53,360 53,360 Navy California Camp Pendleton I MEF Consolidated Information Center .................... 113,869 –90,869 23,000 Navy California Camp Pendleton 62 Area Mess Hall and Consolidated Warehouse ..... 71,700 71,700 Navy California China Lake Runway & Taxiway Extension .................................... 64,500 64,500 Navy California Coronado Aircraft Paint Complex .............................................. 0 79,000 79,000 Navy California Coronado Aircraft Paint Complex .............................................. 79,100 79,100 Navy California Coronado Navy V–22 Hangar .................................................... 86,830 86,830 Navy California MCAS Miramar Child Development Center ......................................... 0 37,400 37,400 Navy California MCRD San Diego PMO Facility Replacement ......................................... 0 9,900 9,900 Navy California San Diego Pier 8 Replacement (INC) .......................................... 59,353 59,353 Navy California Seal Beach Missile Magazines ..................................................... 0 28,000 28,000 

572 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Navy California Seal Beach Ammunition Pier ........................................................ 95,310 95,310 Navy California Travis AFB Alert Force Complex ................................................... 64,000 64,000 Navy Connecticut New London SSN Berthing Pier 32 ................................................ 72,260 72,260 Navy District of Columbia Naval Observatory Master Time Clocks & Operations Fac (INC) ............ 75,600 75,600 Navy Florida Jacksonville Targeting & Surveillance Syst Prod Supp Fac .......... 32,420 32,420 Navy Florida MCSF Blount Island Police Station and EOC Facility Replacement .......... 0 18,700 18,700 Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Machine Gun Range (INC) ......................................... 91,287 91,287 Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Bachelor Enlisted Quarters H .................................... 164,100 –144,100 20,000 Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas EOD Compound Facilities .......................................... 61,900 61,900 Navy Hawaii Kaneohe Bay Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ........................................ 134,050 –95,050 39,000 Navy Hawaii West Loch Magazine Consolidation, Phase 1 ............................. 53,790 53,790 Navy Italy Sigonella Communications Station ........................................... 77,400 77,400 Navy Japan Iwakuni VTOL Pad—South ...................................................... 15,870 15,870 Navy Japan Yokosuka Pier 5 (Berths 2 and 3) ............................................ 174,692 –64,692 110,000 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio BN Complex, Phase 2 (INC) .................... 25,650 25,650 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune ACV-AAV Maintenance Facility Upgrades .................. 11,570 11,570 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 10th Marines HIMARS Complex ................................. 35,110 35,110 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune II MEF Operations Center Replacement .................... 122,200 122,200 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2nd MARDIV/2nd MLG Ops Center Replacement ...... 60,130 60,130 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Slocum Road Physical Security Compliance ............. 0 52,300 52,300 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (INC) ........................... 73,970 73,970 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point F–35 Training and Simulator Facility ....................... 53,230 53,230 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point ATC Tower & Airfield Operations ............................... 61,340 61,340 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Flightline Utility Modernization (INC) ........................ 51,860 51,860 Navy North Carolina New River CH–53K Cargo Loading Trainer ................................. 11,320 11,320 Navy South Carolina MCRD Parris Island Range Safety Improvements and Modernization 

Phase III, Chosin Range.

0 37,200 37,200 

573 

Navy Utah Hill AFB D5 Missile Motor Receipt/Storage Fac (INC) ............. 50,520 50,520 Navy Virginia Portsmouth Dry Dock Flood Protection Improvements .................. 48,930 48,930 Navy Virginia Quantico Wargaming Center ..................................................... 143,350 –133,350 10,000 Navy Virginia Yorktown NMC Ordnance Facilities Recapitalization, Phase 1 0 59,000 59,000 Navy Washington Bremerton Dry Dock 4 & Pier 3 Modernization ........................... 51,010 51,010 Navy Washington Keyport Undersea Vehicle Maintenance Facility ..................... 25,050 25,050 Navy Washington Kitsap Seawolf Service Pier Cost-to-Complete ..................... 0 48,000 48,000 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Family Housing Mitigation and Oversight ................. 0 59,600 59,600 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning and Design ................................................. 0 20,400 20,400 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning and Design ................................................. 0 8,000 8,000 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 81,237 81,237 

Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 167,715 167,715 

SUBTOTAL NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,805,743 79,039 2,884,782 

AIR FORCE Air Force Alaska Eielson AFB F–35 AME Storage Facility ........................................ 8,600 8,600 Air Force Arkansas Little Rock AFB C–130H/J Fuselage Trainer Facility ........................... 47,000 47,000 Air Force Australia Tindal APR-RAAF Tindal/Bulk Storage Tanks ....................... 59,000 59,000 Air Force Australia Tindal APR—RAAF Tindal/Earth Covered Magazine ............ 11,600 11,600 Air Force California Travis AFB MMHS Allied Support ................................................. 0 17,000 17,000 Air Force California Travis AFB KC–46A Alter B181/B185/B187 Squad Ops/AMU ..... 6,600 6,600 Air Force California Travis AFB KC–46A Regional Maintenance Training Facility ...... 19,500 19,500 Air Force Colorado Peterson AFB SOCNORTH Theater Operational Support Facility ...... 0 54,000 54,000 Air Force Colorado Schriever AFB Consolidated Space Operations Facility .................... 148,000 –125,000 23,000 Air Force Cyprus RAF Akrotiri New Dormitory for 1 ERS ........................................... 27,000 27,000 Air Force Guam Joint Region Marianas Munitions Storage Igloos III ...................................... 65,000 65,000 Air Force Illinois Scott AFB Joint Operations & Mission Planning Center ............ 100,000 –10,000 90,000 Air Force Japan Kadena Air Base Munitions Storage ...................................................... 0 7,000 7,000 Air Force Japan Misawa Air Base Fuel Infrastructure Resiliency .................................... 0 5,300 5,300 Air Force Japan Yokota AB Fuel Receipt & Distribution Upgrade ........................ 12,400 12,400 

574 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Air Force Jordan Azraq Air Traffic Control Tower ........................................... 24,000 24,000 Air Force Jordan Azraq Munitions Storage Area ............................................. 42,000 42,000 Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Fuel Tanks w/ Pipeline/Hydrant System .................... 109,000 –99,000 10,000 Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Airfield Development Phase 1 ................................... 109,000 –99,000 10,000 Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Parking Apron ............................................................ 98,000 98,000 Air Force Maryland Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft Recap Complex Inc 3 ............... 86,000 86,000 Air Force Massachusetts Hanscom AFB MIT-Lincoln Lab (West Lab CSL/MIF) Inc 2 .............. 135,000 –70,000 65,000 Air Force Missouri Whiteman AFB Consolidated Vehicle Ops and MX Facility ............... 0 27,000 27,000 Air Force Montana Malmstrom AFB Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility ............. 235,000 –219,000 16,000 Air Force Nevada Nellis AFB 365th ISR Group Facility ........................................... 57,000 57,000 Air Force Nevada Nellis AFB F–35A Munitions Assembly Conveyor Facility ........... 8,200 8,200 Air Force New Mexico Holloman AFB NC3 Support WRM Storage/Shipping Facility ............ 0 20,000 20,000 Air Force New Mexico Kirtland AFB Combat Rescue Helicopter Simulator (CRH) ADAL ... 15,500 15,500 Air Force New Mexico Kirtland AFB UH–1 Replacement Facility ....................................... 22,400 22,400 Air Force North Dakota Minot AFB Helo/TRFOps/AMUFacility ........................................... 5,500 5,500 Air Force Ohio Wright-Patterson AFB ADAL Intelligence Prod. Complex (NASIC) Inc 2 ....... 120,900 –46,900 74,000 Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 8 ........................................... 110,000 –93,000 17,000Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio Aquatics Tank ............................................................ 69,000 69,000 Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio T-XA DAL Ground Based Trng Sys (GBTS) Sim ......... 9,300 9,300 Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio T-XMX Trng Sys Centrailized Trng Fac ...................... 19,000 19,000 Air Force United Kingdom Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A PGM Facility ................................................... 14,300 14,300 

Air Force Utah Hill AFB GBSD Mission Integration Facility ............................. 108,000 –90,000 18,000 Air Force Utah Hill AFB Joint Advanced Tactical Missile Storage Fac ............ 6,500 6,500 Air Force Washington Fairchild AFB Consolidated TFI Base Operations ............................ 31,000 31,000 Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified CONUS Military Family Housing Civilian Personnel ............... 0 31,200 31,200 Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Cost to Complete ....................................................... 0 190,000 190,000 

575 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design ................................................. 0 40,000 40,000 Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 142,148 142,148 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 79,682 79,682 Air Force Wyoming F. E. Warren AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/AMU and Alert Fac ........ 18,100 18,100 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,179,230 –460,400 1,718,830 

DEFENSE-WIDE Defense-Wide California Beale AFB Hydrant Fuel System Replacement ............................ 33,700 33,700 Defense-Wide California Camp Pendleton Ambul Care Center/Dental Clinic Replacement ........ 17,700 17,700 Defense-Wide California Mountain View—63 RSC Install Microgrid Controller, 750 kW PV, and 750 

kWh Battery Storage.

0 9,700 9,700 

Defense-Wide California NAWS China Lake Energy Storage System .............................................. 0 8,950 8,950 Defense-Wide California NSA Monterey COGENERATION PLANT AT B236 ................................ 0 10,540 10,540 Defense-Wide Conus Classified Classified Location Battalion Complex, Ph 3 ........................................... 82,200 82,200 Defense-Wide Florida Eglin AFB SOF Combined Squadron Ops Facility ....................... 16,500 16,500 Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF Maintenance Training Facility ............................ 18,950 18,950 Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF AMU & Weapons Hangar .................................... 72,923 72,923 Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF Combined Squadron Operations Facility ............ 16,513 16,513 Defense-Wide Florida Key West SOF Watercraft Maintenance Facility ........................ 16,000 16,000 Defense-Wide Germany Geilenkirchen AB Ambulatory Care Center/Dental Clinic ...................... 30,479 30,479 Defense-Wide Germany Ramstein Landstuhl Elementary School .................................... 0 66,800 66,800 Defense-Wide Guam Joint Region Marianas Xray Wharf Refueling Facility .................................... 19,200 19,200 Defense-Wide Guam NB Guam NSA Andersen Smart Grid and ICS Infrastructure .... 0 16,970 16,970 Defense-Wide Hawaii Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam (JBPHH) Install 500KW Covered Parking PV System & Elec- tric Vehicle Charging Stations B479. 0 4,000 4,000 Defense-Wide Hawaii Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam SOF Undersea Operational Training Facility ............. 67,700 67,700 

Defense-Wide Japan Yokosuka Kinnick High School Inc 2 ......................................... 130,386 –120,386 10,000 Defense-Wide Japan Yokota AB Pacific East District Superintendent’s Office ........... 20,106 20,106 Defense-Wide Japan Yokota AB Bulk Storage Tanks PH1 ............................................ 116,305 –95,305 21,000 

576 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Defense-Wide Louisiana JRB NAS New Orleans Distribution Switchgear ............................................. 0 5,340 5,340 Defense-Wide Maryland Bethesda Naval Hospital MEDCEN Addition/Altertion Incr 3 ............................. 96,900 96,900 Defense-Wide Maryland Fort Detrick Medical Research Acquisition Building ..................... 27,846 27,846 Defense-Wide Maryland Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #3 Inc 2 ....................... 426,000 426,000 Defense-Wide Maryland NSA Bethesda Chiller 3-9 Replacement ........................................... 0 13,840 13,840 

Defense-Wide Maryland South Potomac IH Water Project—CBIRF/IHEODTD/Housing .............. 0 18,460 18,460 Defense-Wide Mississippi Columbus AFB Fuel Facilities Replacement ...................................... 16,800 16,800 Defense-Wide Missouri Fort Leonard Wood Hospital Replacement Incr 2 ..................................... 50,000 50,000 Defense-Wide Missouri St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Phase 2 Inc. 2 ........ 218,800 –65,800 153,000 Defense-Wide New Mexico White Sands Missile 

Range 

Install Microgrid, 700KW PV, 150 KW Generator, 

and Batteries.

0 5,800 5,800 

Defense-Wide North Carolina Camp Lejeune SOF Marine Raider Regiment HQ .............................. 13,400 13,400 Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Human Platform-Force Generation Facility ........ 43,000 43,000 Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Assessment and Selection Training Complex .... 12,103 12,103 Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Operations Support Bldg .................................... 29,000 29,000 Defense-Wide Oklahoma Tulsa IAP Fuels Storage Complex .............................................. 18,900 18,900 Defense-Wide Rhode Island Quonset State Airport Fuels Storage Complex Replacement ........................ 11,600 11,600 Defense-Wide South Carolina Joint Base Charleston Medical Consolidated Storage & Distrib Center ....... 33,300 33,300 Defense-Wide South Dakota Ellsworth AFB Hydrant Fuel System Replacement ............................ 24,800 24,800 Defense-Wide Texas Camp Swift Install Microgrid, 650 KW PV, & 500 KW Generator 0 4,500 4,500 Defense-Wide Texas Fort Hood Install a Central Energy Plant .................................. 0 16,500 16,500 Defense-Wide Virginia Dam Neck SOF Demolition Training Compound Expansion ........ 12,770 12,770 Defense-Wide Virginia Def Distribution Depot 

Richmond 

Operations Center Phase 2 ....................................... 98,800 98,800 

Defense-Wide Virginia Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek—Story 

SOF NSWG–10 Operations Support Facility ............... 32,600 32,600 

577 

Defense-Wide Virginia Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek—Story 

SOF NSWG2 JSOTF Ops Training Facility ................... 13,004 13,004 

Defense-Wide Virginia NRO Headquarters Irrigation System Upgrade ......................................... 0 66 66 Defense-Wide Virginia Pentagon Backup Generator ...................................................... 8,670 8,670 Defense-Wide Virginia Pentagon Control Tower & Fire Day Station .............................. 20,132 20,132 Defense-Wide Washington Joint Base Lewis-McChord SOF 22 STS Operations Facility ................................. 47,700 47,700 Defense-Wide Washington Naval Base Kitsap Keyport Main Substation Replacement ..................... 0 23,670 23,670 Defense-Wide Wisconsin Gen Mitchell IAP POL Facilities Replacement ....................................... 25,900 25,900 Defense-Wide Worldwide Classified Classified Location Mission Support Compound ....................................... 52,000 52,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Defense Community Infrastructure Program ............. 0 100,000 100,000Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 4,950 4,950 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 8,000 8,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 29,679 29,679 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 10,000 10,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 35,472 35,472 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 31,464 31,464 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Energy Resilience and Conserv. Invest. Prog. ........... 150,000 150,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Contingency Construction .......................................... 10,000 10,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,000 3,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 14,400 14,400 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERCIP Design ............................................................. 10,000 10,000 

578 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,228 3,228 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 15,000 15,000 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Exercise Related Minor Construction ......................... 11,770 11,770 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 4,890 4,890 

Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 52,532 52,532 Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 27,000 27,000 Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 16,736 16,736 Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 10,000 10,000 Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 63,382 63,382 

SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,504,190 23,645 2,527,835 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Army National Guard Alabama Anniston Enlisted Transient Training Barracks ........................ 0 34,000 34,000 Army National Guard Alabama Foley National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 12,000 12,000 Army National Guard California Camp Roberts Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range .......... 12,000 12,000 Army National Guard Idaho Orchard Training Area Railroad Tracks .......................................................... 29,000 29,000 Army National Guard Maryland Havre De Grace Combined Support Maintenance Shop ...................... 12,000 12,000 Army National Guard Massachusetts Camp Edwards Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range .......... 9,700 9,700 

579 

Army National Guard Minnesota New Ulm National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 11,200 11,200 Army National Guard Mississippi Camp Shelby Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range .......... 8,100 8,100 Army National Guard Missouri Springfield National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 12,000 12,000 Army National Guard Nebraska Bellevue National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 29,000 29,000 Army National Guard New Hampshire Concord National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 5,950 5,950 Army National Guard New York Jamaica Armory National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 0 20,000 20,000 Army National Guard Pennsylvania Moon Township Combined Support Maintenance Shop ...................... 23,000 23,000 Army National Guard Vermont Camp Ethan Allen General Instruction Building (Mountain Warfare 

School).

0 30,000 30,000 

Army National Guard Washington Richland National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 11,400 11,400 Army National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 15,000 15,000 

Army National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 20,469 20,469 

SUBTOTAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .................................................................................................................................................. 210,819 84,000 294,819 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD Air National Guard California Moffett Air National 

Guard Base (NASA) 

Fuels/Corrosion Control Hangar and Shops .............. 0 57,000 57,000 

Air National Guard Georgia Savannah/Hilton Head IAP Consolidated Joint Air Dominance Hangar/Shops ..... 24,000 24,000 Air National Guard Missouri Rosecrans Memorial Airport C–130 Flight Simulator Facility ................................ 9,500 9,500 Air National Guard Puerto Rico Luis Munoz-Marin IAP Communications Facility ........................................... 12,500 12,500 

Air National Guard Puerto Rico Luis Munoz-Marin IAP Maintenance Hangar ................................................. 37,500 37,500 Air National Guard Wisconsin Truax Field F–35 Simulator Facility ............................................. 14,000 14,000 Air National Guard Wisconsin Truax Field Fighter Alert Shelters ................................................. 20,000 20,000 Air National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 31,471 31,471 

Air National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 17,000 17,000 

SUBTOTAL AIR NATIONAL GUARD ...................................................................................................................................................... 165,971 57,000 222,971 

580 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ARMY RESERVE Army Reserve Delaware Dover AFB Army Reserve Center/BMA ......................................... 21,000 21,000 Army Reserve Wisconsin Fort McCoy Transient Training Barracks ...................................... 25,000 25,000 Army Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 8,928 8,928 

Army Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 6,000 6,000 

SUBTOTAL ARMY RESERVE ................................................................................................................................................................ 60,928 0 60,928 

NAVY RESERVE Navy Reserve Louisiana New Orleans Entry Control Facility Upgrades ................................. 25,260 25,260 Navy Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 24,915 24,915 

Navy Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 4,780 4,780 

SUBTOTAL NAVY RESERVE ................................................................................................................................................................ 54,955 0 54,955 

AIR FORCE RESERVE Air Force Reserve Georgia Robins AFB Consolidated Misssion Complex Phase 3 .................. 43,000 43,000 Air Force Reserve Minnesota Minneapolis-St Paul IAP Aerial Port Facility ..................................................... 0 9,800 9,800 Air Force Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 4,604 4,604 

Air Force Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 12,146 12,146 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE RESERVE ....................................................................................................................................................... 59,750 9,800 69,550 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

581 

NATO Security Investment Program Worldwide Unspecified NATO Security Investment Program NATO Security Investment Program ........................... 144,040 144,040 

SUBTOTAL NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 144,040 0 144,040 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 9,639,125 –403,416 9,235,709 

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ARMY Construction, Army Germany Baumholder Family Housing Improvements .................................. 29,983 29,983 Construction, Army Korea Camp Humphreys Family Housing New Construction Incr 4 .................. 83,167 83,167 Construction, Army Pennsylvania Tobyhanna Army Depot Family Housing Replacement Construction ............... 19,000 19,000 Construction, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Family Housing P & D ............................................... 9,222 9,222 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, ARMY .................................................................................................................................................... 141,372 0 141,372 

O&M, ARMY O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 38,898 38,898 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 10,156 10,156 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 24,027 24,027 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 484 484 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 81,065 81,065 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 55,712 55,712 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 128,938 128,938 

O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privitization Support .................................... 18,627 65,000 83,627 

582 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL O&M, ARMY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 357,907 65,000 422,907 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Construction, Navy 

and Marine Corps 

Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

USMC DPRI/GUAM PLANNING AND DESIGN ............... 2,000 2,000 

Construction, Navy 

and Marine Corps 

Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 41,798 41,798 

Construction, Navy 

and Marine Corps 

Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 3,863 3,863 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ................................................................................................................... 47,661 0 47,661 

O&M, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ...................................................................... 63,229 63,229 

O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ................................................................ 19,009 19,009 O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management .............................................................. 50,122 50,122 O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous ............................................................ 151 151 O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services ...................................................................... 16,647 16,647 O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ...................................................................... 64,126 64,126 O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance .............................................................. 82,611 82,611 

583 

O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization Support ................................... 21,975 81,000 102,975 

SUBTOTAL O&M, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS .................................................................................................................................... 317,870 81,000 398,870 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE Construction, Air 

Force 

Germany Spangdahlem AB Construct Deficit Military Family Housing ................ 53,584 53,584 

Construction, Air 

Force 

Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 46,638 46,638 

Construction, Air 

Force 

Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 3,409 3,409 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................ 103,631 0 103,631 

O&M, AIR FORCE O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization ................................................. 22,593 65,000 87,593 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 42,732 42,732 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 56,022 56,022 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 7,770 7,770 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 30,283 30,283 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 2,144 2,144 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 15,768 15,768 

O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 117,704 117,704 

SUBTOTAL O&M, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................................. 295,016 65,000 360,016 

584 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

O&M, DEFENSE-WIDE O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 4,100 4,100 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 82 82 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 13 13 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 12,906 12,906 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 32 32 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 645 645 

O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 39,222 39,222 

SUBTOTAL O&M, DEFENSE-WIDE ...................................................................................................................................................... 57,000 0 57,000 

IMPROVEMENT FUND Improvement Fund Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Administrative Expenses—FHIF ................................ 3,045 3,045 

SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,045 0 3,045 

UNACCMP HSG IMPROVEMENT FUND Unaccmp HSG Improvement Fund Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Administrative Expenses—UHIF ................................ 500 500 

SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPROVEMENT FUND ............................................................................................................................. 500 0 500 

585 

TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,324,002 211,000 1,535,002 

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ARMY BRAC Army BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................. 66,111 66,111 

SUBTOTAL ARMY BRAC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 66,111 0 66,111 

NAVY BRAC Navy BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Base Realignment & Closure .................................... 158,349 158,349 

SUBTOTAL NAVY BRAC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 158,349 0 158,349 

AIR FORCE BRAC Air Force BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ................................ 54,066 54,066 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE BRAC ............................................................................................................................................................. 54,066 0 54,066 

TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 278,526 278,526 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 11,241,653 –192,416 11,049,237 

586 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY Army Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Guantanamo Bay Naval 

Station 

OCO: Communications Facility .................................. 22,000 22,000 

Army Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Guantanamo Bay Naval 

Station 

OCO: High Value Detention Facility ........................... 88,500 –88,500 0 

Army Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Guantanamo Bay Naval 

Station 

OCO: Detention Legal Office and Comms Ctr ........... 11,800 11,800 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Bulk Fuel Storage .............................................. 36,000 36,000 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Information Systems Facility ............................. 6,200 6,200 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI/OCO Planning and Design .................................. 19,498 19,498 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Minor Construction ............................................. 5,220 5,220 

Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Worldwide Construction ......................... 9,200,000 –9,200,000 0 

SUBTOTAL ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9,389,218 –9,288,500 100,718 

NAVY Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 1/8 BN HQ Replacement ........................................... 0 20,635 20,635 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 22nd, 24th and 26th MEU Headquarters Replacement. 0 31,110 31,110 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2D Tank BN/CO HQ and Armory Replacement .......... 0 30,154 30,154 

587 

Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2D TSB HQ Replacement ........................................... 0 17,413 17,413 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Replacement .................. 0 62,104 62,104 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune C–12W Aircraft Maintenance Hangar Replacement 0 36,295 36,295 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune CLB Headquarters Facilities Replacement ................ 0 24,788 24,788 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Courthouse Bay Fire Station Replacement ................ 0 21,336 21,336 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Division Replacement .. 0 11,658 11,658 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Fire Station Replacement, Hadnot Point ................... 0 21,931 21,931 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Hadnot Point Mess Hall Replacement ....................... 0 66,023 66,023 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune II MEF Simulation/Training Center Replacement ...... 0 74,487 74,487 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune LOGCOM CSP Warehouse Replacement ..................... 0 35,874 35,874 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune LSSS Facility Replacement ........................................ 0 26,815 26,815 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune MCAB HQ Replacement ............................................. 0 30,109 30,109 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune MCCSSS Log Ops School ........................................... 0 179,617 179,617 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune PMO/H&HS & MWHS–2 Headquarters Replacement 0 65,845 65,845 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Replace NCIS Facilities ............................................. 0 22,594 22,594 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Replace Regimental Headquarters 2DMARDIV .......... 0 64,155 64,155 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Replace WTBN Headquarters ..................................... 0 18,644 18,644 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point BT–11 Range Operations Center Replacement ......... 0 14,251 14,251 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Motor Transportation/Communication Shop Replacement. 0 32,785 32,785 Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Station Academic Facility/Auditorium Replacement 0 17,525 17,525 Navy Spain Rota EDI: Joint Mobility Center .......................................... 46,840 46,840 Navy Spain Rota EDI: In-Transit Munitions Facility .............................. 9,960 9,960 Navy Spain Rota EDI: Small Craft Berthing Facility ............................. 12,770 12,770 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning & Design .................................................... 0 50,000 50,000 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 25,000 25,000 

SUBTOTAL NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 94,570 976,148 1,070,718 

AIR FORCE Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB 53 WEG Hangar ......................................................... 0 96,000 96,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB 53 WEG HQ Facility ................................................... 0 47,000 47,000 

588 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB 53 WEG Subscale Drone Facility ............................... 0 53,000 53,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB ABM SIM .................................................................... 0 12,900 12,900 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Aerospace & Operational Physiology Facility ............ 0 10,400 10,400 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB AFCEC RDT&E Facilities and Gate ............................ 0 195,000 195,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Aircraft Washrack ...................................................... 0 10,600 10,600 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Civil Engineer Contracting USACE Complex .............. 0 130,000 130,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Crash Fire Rescue ..................................................... 0 17,200 17,200 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Deployment Center / Flight Line Dining / AAFES ...... 0 31,000 31,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Emergency Management, EOC, Alt CP ...................... 0 14,400 14,400 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Fire Station #2 ........................................................... 0 11,000 11,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Fire Station Silver Flag #4 ........................................ 0 5,900 5,900 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB FW AC Maintenance Fuel Cell (Barn) ........................ 0 28,000 28,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Logistics Readiness Squadron Complex .................... 0 102,000 102,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB LRS Aircraft Parts & Deployable Spares Storage Facilities. 0 29,000 29,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB New Lodge Facilities .................................................. 0 176,000 176,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Operations Group/Maintenance Group HQ ................. 0 18,500 18,500 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB OSS / RAPCON Facility .............................................. 0 51,000 51,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Relocate F–22 Formal Training Unit ......................... 0 150,000 150,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB SFS Mobility Storage Facility ..................................... 0 2,800 2,800 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Silver Flag Facilities .................................................. 0 35,000 35,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Special Purpose Vehicle Maintenance ....................... 0 14,000 14,000 Air Force Florida Tyndall AFB Tyndall AFB Gate Complexes ..................................... 0 38,000 38,000 Air Force Iceland Keflavik EDI-Expand Parking Apron ........................................ 32,000 32,000 Air Force Iceland Keflavik EDI-Beddown Site Prep .............................................. 7,000 7,000 Air Force Iceland Keflavik EDI-Airfield Upgrades—Dangerous Cargo PAD ........ 18,000 18,000 Air Force Spain Moron EDI-Hot Cargo Pad .................................................... 8,500 8,500 

589 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning & Design .................................................... 0 247,000 247,000 Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI-Hot Cargo Pad .................................................... 29,000 29,000 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI-MUNITIONS STORAGE AREA ................................. 39,000 39,000 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI-ECAOS DABS/FEV EMEDS Storage ...................... 107,000 107,000 

Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations EDI-P&D ..................................................................... 61,438 61,438 Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations EDI-UMMC .................................................................. 12,800 12,800 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 314,738 1,525,700 1,840,438 

DEFENSE-WIDE Defense-Wide Germany Gemersheim EDI: Logistics Distribution Center Annex .................. 46,000 46,000 Defense-Wide North Carolina Camp Lejeune Ambulatory Care Center (Camp Geiger) .................... 0 17,821 17,821 Defense-Wide North Carolina Camp Lejeune Ambulatory Care Center (Camp Johnson) ................. 0 27,492 27,492 Defense-Wide North Carolina Camp Lejeune Replace MARSOC ITC Team Facility .......................... 0 30,000 30,000 Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

2808 Replenishment Fund ........................................ 0 3,600,000 3,600,000 

SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE ................................................................................................................................................................ 46,000 3,675,313 3,721,313 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Army National Guard Florida Panama City National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 0 25,000 25,000 Army National Guard North Carolina MTA Fort Fisher Administrative Building, General Purpose ................ 0 25,000 25,000 

SUBTOTAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .................................................................................................................................................. 50,000 50,000 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 9,844,526 –3,061,339 6,783,187 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 9,844,526 –3,061,339 6,783,187 

(591) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

592 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary by Appropriation 

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 137,808 0 137,808 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................... 434,699 –11,700 422,999 Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,993,302 –29,100 1,964,202 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,648,396 0 1,648,396 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 16,485,000 29,000 16,514,000 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,506,501 0 5,506,501 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 1,035,339 –3,000 1,032,339 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (90M in 270 Energy) .................................................................................. 26,000 –26,000 0 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,567,840 –29,000 6,538,840 

593 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 23,052,840 0 23,052,840 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 23,190,648 0 23,190,648 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 137,808 137,808 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 137,808 0 137,808 

Federal Salaries and Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 434,699 –11,700 422,999 

Alignment with FTEs authorized ....................................................................................................................................... [–11,700 ] 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs and major alterations 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 792,611 792,611 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 W76–2 Modification program .................................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 W88 Alteration program .......................................................................................................................................... 304,186 304,186 W80–4 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 898,551 898,551 IW1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 W87–1 Modification Program (formerly IW1) .......................................................................................................... 112,011 112,011 

Total, Life extension programs and major alterations ................................................................................................. 2,117,359 0 2,117,359 Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 71,232 71,232 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 89,804 89,804 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 81,299 81,299 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 85,811 85,811 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 51,543 51,543 

594 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 98,262 98,262 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 157,815 157,815 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 635,766 0 635,766 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 47,500 47,500 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 543,964 543,964 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 39,339 1,000 40,339 

UFR list—technology maturation ................................................................................................................... [1,000 ] 

R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 236,235 10,000 246,235 

UFR list—technology maturation ................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 305,000 305,000 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 1,124,538 11,000 1,135,538 Strategic materials 

Uranium sustainment .............................................................................................................................................. 94,146 94,146 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Plutonium sustainment: 

Plutonium sustainment .................................................................................................................................. 691,284 691,284 Plutonium pit production project ................................................................................................................... 21,156 21,156 

Total, Plutonium sustainment: ............................................................................................................................... 712,440 0 712,440 

Tritium sustainment ................................................................................................................................................ 269,000 269,000 Domestic uranium enrichment ................................................................................................................................ 140,000 140,000 

595 

Lithium sustainment ............................................................................................................................................... 28,800 28,800 Strategic materials sustainment ............................................................................................................................. 256,808 256,808 

Total, Strategic materials ............................................................................................................................................... 1,501,194 0 1,501,194 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 5,426,357 11,000 5,437,357 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) 

Science 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 57,710 57,710 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 95,169 95,169 Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 133,800 133,800 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 32,544 32,544 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 77,553 77,553 Academic alliances and partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 44,625 44,625 Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments ................................................................................................ 145,160 145,160 

Total, Science .................................................................................................................................................................. 586,561 0 586,561 

Engineering 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 46,500 8,000 54,500 

UFR list—technology maturation ................................................................................................................... [8,000 ] 

Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 0 0 Delivery environments (formerly Weapon systems engineering assessment technology) ...................................... 35,945 35,945 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 53,932 53,932 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 57,747 57,747 Stockpile Responsiveness ........................................................................................................................................ 39,830 40,800 80,630 

Program expansion ......................................................................................................................................... [40,800 ] 

Total, Engineering ............................................................................................................................................................ 233,954 48,800 282,754 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield 

Ignition and other stockpile programs .................................................................................................................... 55,649 55,649 Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 

596 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 66,128 66,128 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 8,571 8,571 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 338,247 338,247 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield ........................................................................................................ 480,595 0 480,595 Advanced simulation and computing 

Advanced simulation and computing ..................................................................................................................... 789,849 789,849 Construction: 

18–D–670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling Equipment, LANL .................................................................. 0 0 18–D–620, Exascale Computing Facility Modernization Project, LLNL ......................................................... 50,000 50,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 50,000 0 50,000 

Total, Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................... 839,849 0 839,849 

Advanced manufacturing development 

Additive manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 18,500 18,500 Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 48,410 10,000 58,410 

UFR list—technology maturation ................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

Process technology development ............................................................................................................................. 69,998 69,998 

Total, Advanced manufacturing development ............................................................................................................... 136,908 10,000 146,908 

Total, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,277,867 58,800 2,336,667 Infrastructure and operations 

Operating 

Operations of facilities 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................... 905,000 905,000 

597 

Safety and environmental operations ..................................................................................................................... 119,000 119,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities ...................................................................................................................... 456,000 456,000 Recapitalization 

Infrastructure and safety ............................................................................................................................... 447,657 447,657 Capability based investments ........................................................................................................................ 135,341 135,341 

Total, Recapitalization ............................................................................................................................................ 582,998 0 582,998 

Total, Operating ............................................................................................................................................ 2,062,998 0 2,062,998 

Construction: 

19–D–670, 138kV Power Transmission System Replacement, NNSS ..................................................................... 6,000 6,000 18–D–660, Fire Station, Y–12 ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 18–D–650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS ...................................................................................................... 27,000 27,000 18–D–680, Materials staging facility, PX .............................................................................................................. 0 0 18–D–690, Lithium production capability, Y–12 ................................................................................................... 0 0 18–D–690, Lithium processing facility, Y–12 (formerly Lithium production capability) ...................................... 32,000 32,000 17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS ........................................................................................ 35,000 35,000 17–D–630, Expand Electrical Distribution System, LLNL ....................................................................................... 0 0 16–D–515, Albuquerque complex project ............................................................................................................... 0 0 15–D–613, Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ................................................................................................... 0 0 15–D–612, Emergency Operations Center, LLNL .................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 15–D–611, Emergency Operations Center, SNL ...................................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX ................................................................................................. 123,000 123,000 07–D–220, Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL ................................................... 0 0 07–D–220-04, Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL ......................................................................................... 0 0 06–D–141, Uranium processing facility Y–12, Oak Ridge, TN .............................................................................. 745,000 745,000 Chemistry and metallurgy research replacement (CMRR) 

04–D–125, Chemistry and metallurgy research replacement project, LANL ................................................ 168,444 168,444 04–D–125–04, RLUOB equipment installation .............................................................................................. 0 0 04–D–125–05, PF –4 equipment installation ............................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Chemistry and metallurgy research replacement (CMRR) ....................................................................... 168,444 0 168,444 

598 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,145,444 0 1,145,444 

Total, Infrastructure and operations ...................................................................................................................................... 3,208,442 0 3,208,442 Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 209,502 209,502 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 107,660 107,660 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 317,162 0 317,162 Defense nuclear security ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 778,213 778,213 

Security improvements program ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Construction: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

17–D–710, West end protected area reduction project, Y–12 ............................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 778,213 0 778,213 Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 309,362 309,362 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 91,200 91,200 

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403 

Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Adjustments .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

599 

Material management and minimization 

HEU reactor conversion ........................................................................................................................................... 114,000 114,000 Nuclear material removal ........................................................................................................................................ 32,925 32,925 Material disposition ................................................................................................................................................. 186,608 186,608 Laboratory and partnership support ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Material management & minimization ................................................................................................................ 333,533 0 333,533 

Global material security 

International nuclear security ................................................................................................................................. 48,839 48,839 Domestic radiological security ................................................................................................................................ 90,513 90,513 International radiological security ........................................................................................................................... 60,827 60,827 Nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence ......................................................................................................... 142,171 142,171 

Total, Global material security ....................................................................................................................................... 342,350 0 342,350 Nonproliferation and arms control ................................................................................................................................... 137,267 137,267 Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D 

Proliferation detection ............................................................................................................................................. 304,040 –19,500 284,540 

Nonproliferation Stewardship program strategic plan ................................................................................... [–19,500 ] 

Nuclear detonation detection .................................................................................................................................. 191,317 191,317 Nonproliferation fuels development ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D ............................................................................................................... 495,357 –19,500 475,857 Nonproliferation construction 

U. S. Construction: 

18–D–150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project ......................................................................................... 79,000 79,000 99–D–143, Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ...................................................................... 220,000 220,000 

Total, U. S. Construction: ....................................................................................................................................... 299,000 0 299,000 

Total, Nonproliferation construction .............................................................................................................................. 299,000 0 299,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,607,507 –19,500 1,588,007 

Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,700 13,700 Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program 

600 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response ............................................................................................................. 0 0 Emergency Operations ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,545 –9,600 25,945 

Non-defense function realignment .......................................................................................................................... [–9,600 ] 

Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation ....................................................................................................................... 336,550 336,550 

Total, Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 372,095 –9,600 362,495 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................................................................... 1,993,302 –29,100 1,964,202 

Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Adjustments .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................................................................... 1,993,302 –29,100 1,964,202 

Rescission 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (Gen. Prov.) ................................................................................................................ 0 0 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,993,302 –29,100 1,964,202 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 531,205 531,205 Columbia-Class reactor systems development ......................................................................................................................... 75,500 75,500 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 155,000 155,000 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 553,591 553,591 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50,500 50,500 Construction: 

20-D–931, KL Fuel development laboratory ..................................................................................................................... 23,700 23,700 19–D–930, KS Overhead Piping ....................................................................................................................................... 20,900 20,900 

601 

17–D–911, BL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 15–D–904, NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 .............................................................................................................. 0 0 15–D–903, KL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 14–D–901, Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ....................................................................................... 238,000 238,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 282,600 0 282,600 

Transfer to NE—Advanced Test Reactor (non-add) ................................................................................................................. ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,648,396 0 1,648,396 Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,987 4,987 

Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .......................................................................................................... 139,750 139,750 

Central plateau remediation: 

Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................... 472,949 472,949 

Total, Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................ 472,949 0 472,949 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 5,121 5,121 Construction: 

18–D–404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage ............................................................................................ 11,000 11,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 11,000 0 11,000 

Total, Richland .......................................................................................................................................................................... 628,820 0 628,820 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: 

18–D–16 Waste treatment and immobilization plant -LBL/Direct feed LAW ............................................... 640,000 640,000 15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP ............................................................................ 0 0 01–D–16 D, High-level waste facility ............................................................................................................ 30,000 30,000 

602 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

01–D–16 E, Pretreatment Facility .................................................................................................................. 20,000 20,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 690,000 0 690,000 ORP Low-level waste offsite disposal .............................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,392,460 0 1,392,460 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 331,354 331,354 ID Excess facilities R&D ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,500 3,500 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 334,854 0 334,854 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,727 1,727 LLNL Excess facilities R&D .............................................................................................................................................. 128,000 128,000 Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................ 15,300 15,300 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60,737 60,737 Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,652 2,652 Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 195,462 195,462 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 403,878 0 403,878 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ................................................................................................................................................ 93,693 93,693 OR Excess facilities R&D ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 45,000 45,000 OR cleanup and waste disposition 

OR cleanup and waste disposition ......................................................................................................................... 82,000 82,000 

603 

Subtotal, OR cleanup and waste disposition ................................................................................................................. 82,000 0 82,000 

Construction: 

17–D–401 On-site waste disposal facility .................................................................................................... 15,269 15,269 14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 49,000 49,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 64,269 0 64,269 

Total, OR cleanup and waste disposition ...................................................................................................................... 146,269 0 146,269 OR community & regulatory support ................................................................................................................................ 4,819 4,819 OR technology development and deployment .................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 292,781 0 292,781 

Savannah River Sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations: 

Savannah River risk management operations ........................................................................................................ 490,613 490,613 Construction: 

18–D–402, Emergency Operations Center Replacement, SR ........................................................................ 6,792 6,792 

Total, Savannah River risk management operations .................................................................................................... 497,405 0 497,405 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 4,749 4,749 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 797,706 797,706 Construction: 

20-D–402 Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative Facility (AMC) ................................................................ 50,000 50,000 20-D–401 Saltstone Disposal Unit #10, 11, 12 ............................................................................................ 500 500 19–D–701 SR Security system replacement .................................................................................................. 0 0 18–D–402,Saltstone disposal unit #8/9 ........................................................................................................ 51,750 51,750 17–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #7 ....................................................................................................... 40,034 40,034 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS ............................................................................................. 20,988 20,988 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 163,272 0 163,272 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 960,978 0 960,978 

Total, Savannah River Site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,463,132 0 1,463,132 

604 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................................................................................................... 299,088 299,088 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP .................................................................... 58,054 58,054 15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .............................................................................................................................. 34,500 34,500 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 92,554 0 92,554 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 391,642 0 391,642 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 278,908 278,908 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12,979 12,979 Safeguards and Security ........................................................................................................................................................... 317,622 317,622 Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 Use of prior year balances ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 5,522,063 0 5,522,063 

Rescission: 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... –15,562 –15,562 Rescission of prior year balances (Gen. Prov.) ................................................................................................................ 0 0 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,506,501 0 5,506,501 

Other Defense Activities 

Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 139,628 139,628 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 72,881 72,881 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 212,509 0 212,509 

605 

Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 57,211 –3,000 54,211 

Non-defense function realignment .......................................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 81,279 –3,000 78,279 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 254,578 254,578 Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 283,767 283,767 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 19,262 19,262 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 303,029 0 303,029 Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 54,538 54,538 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 124,554 124,554 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 179,092 0 179,092 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 4,852 4,852 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 1,035,339 –3,000 1,032,339 

Use of prior year balances (HA) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,035,339 –3,000 1,032,339 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Yucca mountain and interim storage ....................................................................................................................................... 26,000 –26000 0 

Total, Defense Nuclear Waste .......................................................................................................................................................... 26,000 –26,000 0 

606 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

Seven legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 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–795 

Dated March 28, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 28, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–924 

Dated April 10, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–925 

Dated April 10, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–992 

Dated April 29, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 29, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–993 

Dated April 29, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 29, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–1117 

Dated May 6, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 6, 2019 

Executive Communication No. EC–1254 

Dated May 9, 2019 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 9, 2019 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2020 passed by roll call vote, 25–2, as follows: 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, 

Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

Hawley, Reed, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Peters, Manchin, Duckworth, and Jones. Opposed: Senators 

Gillibrand and Warren. 

The other 11 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 include a provision that would require sentencing in all non-capital general and special courts-martial under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice to be conducted by a military 

judge, who would be mandated to consider a presentencing investigation report before imposing sentence. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 8–19 

In favor: Senators Perdue, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, 

Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

607 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, 

Reed, Shaheen, King, Manchin, Duckworth, and Jones 

2. MOTION: To include a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to transfer individuals detained at United States 

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily for emergency or critical medical treatment not available at 

Guantanamo. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15–12 

In favor: Senators Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, Reed, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, 

Peters, Manchin, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, and Duckworth 

3. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense from procuring firefighting foam that contains 

perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances after October 1, 2022. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Ernst, Perdue, Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Tillis, Sullivan, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, and 

Manchin 

4. MOTION: To include a provision that would increase the 

amount of funding available for the Navy’s analysis of alternatives 

for a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile and require the Secretary 

of Defense to create a program of record for that program. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–11 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

Hawley, Manchin, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, and Duckworth 

5. MOTION: To include a provision authorizing the Secretary of 

Defense to use up to $10 million of Department of Defense funds 

to facilitate the establishment of a Social Media Data Analysis center at an independent nonprofit organization. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–17 

In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, 

King, Heinrich, Peters, Manchin, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

Hawley, Gillibrand, Warren, and Duckworth 

6. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the use 

of any FY15–FY21 authorized or appropriated military construction 

funds for any ‘‘covered project’’, defined as wall, barrier, fence, or 

a road associated with construction with 100 miles of southern border. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–15 

In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Duckworth, and 

Jones 

608 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

Hawley, and Manchin 

7. MOTION: To include a provision requiring the Department of 

Defense to request reimbursement from outside agencies or departments for any assistance to civilian law enforcement. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

and Hawley 

8. MOTION: To include a provision prohibiting the President of 

the United States from using authorities under the Insurrection 

Act to deploy members of the Armed Forces for the purposes of enforcing immigration laws. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

and Hawley 

9. MOTION: To amend portions of a provision in order to direct 

that the Commander, United States Space Force, report directly to 

the Secretary of the Air Force versus reporting through the Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force and then to the Secretary of the Air Force. 

Additionally, to delay implementation by one year after the date of 

the enactment of this Act and place limits on additional manpower 

billets (military and civilian) for that same year for the purpose of, 

or in connection with, the establishment of the United States Space 

Force. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

and Hawley 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

10. MOTION: To amend portions of a provision in order to place 

the Commander, United States Space Force, as a member of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. Additionally, to delay implementation by one 

year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

and Hawley 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

11. MOTION: To agree with the ruling of the Chair that an 

amendment proposed by Senator Kaine will not be considered because it addresses a matter of shared jurisdiction. 

609 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, 

and Hawley 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin, 

Duckworth, and Jones 

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 2020. 

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. 

Æ