1 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

115–262 

Calendar No. 439 

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

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2987]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 5, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
JOHN S. McCAIN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–285 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–262 

Calendar No. 439 

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

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2987]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 5, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


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

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

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 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTIAN BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

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

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

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

Fiscal Year 2019 ................................................................................................... 3 

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority Implication .. 6 

Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4) ................................................................... 6 

DIVISION A—Department of Defense Authorizations ........................................ 7 

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

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

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

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

Deployment by the Army of an interim cruise missile defense capability (sec. 111) ....................................................................................... 7 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A–18E/F Super Hornet and 

EA–18G aircraft program (sec. 121) ..................................................... 8 

Multiyear procurement authority for E–2D Advanced Hawkeye 

(AHE) aircraft program (sec. 122) ........................................................ 8 

Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding contracts 

for certain vessels (sec. 123) ................................................................. 8 

Prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port waterborne security 

barriers (sec. 124) .................................................................................. 9 

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-6 (sec. 125) ..... 9 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral Combat Ship 

(sec. 126) ................................................................................................. 10 

Nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers (sec. 127) ...................................... 10 

Limitation on funding for Amphibious Assault Vehicle Product Improvement Program (sec. 128) .............................................................. 10 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 11 

Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of E–8 JSTARS 

aircraft (sec. 141) ................................................................................... 11 

B–52H aircraft system modernization report (sec. 142) ........................ 11 

Repeal of funding restriction for EC–130H Compass Call Recapitalization Program and review of program acceleration opportunities 

(sec. 143) ................................................................................................. 12 

Subtitle E—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ........................ 12 

Multiyear procurement authority for C–130J aircraft program (sec. 

151) ......................................................................................................... 12 

Quarterly updates on the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 

152) ......................................................................................................... 12 

Authority to procure additional polar-class icebreakers (sec. 153) ....... 14 

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

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

Interim cruise missile defense capability for the Army .................. 14 

Army Tactical Missile System ........................................................... 14 

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle ........................................................ 14 

Stryker modification .......................................................................... 15 

Stryker upgrade ................................................................................. 15 

Bradley Program (Modifications) ...................................................... 15 

Paladin Integrated Management ...................................................... 15 

Small caliber reduction ...................................................................... 15 

Army ammunition reduction ............................................................. 15 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle .............................................................. 16 

U.S. Southern Command unfunded priorities increase .................. 16 

Army automated data processing equipment .................................. 16 

Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT —Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 17 

F–35C Joint Strike Fighter ............................................................... 17 

E–2D Advanced Hawkeye ................................................................. 17 

USMC OA–X light attack procurement ............................................ 17 

C–40 aircraft ....................................................................................... 18 

USMC Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft 

System procurement ....................................................................... 19 

EA–18G cognitive electronic warfare ............................................... 19 

Adaptive Radar Countermeasure ..................................................... 20 

F–35B modifications .......................................................................... 20 

F–35C modifications .......................................................................... 20 

F–35 spares and repair parts ............................................................ 21 

Sidewinder .......................................................................................... 21 

Long range anti-ship missile ............................................................. 22 

Harpoon block II ................................................................................. 22 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile ........................................ 22 

MK48 torpedoes .................................................................................. 23 

LCS module weapons ......................................................................... 23 

Advanced low-cost munitions ordnance ............................................ 23 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement .............................. 23 

DDG–1000 ........................................................................................... 24 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers .......................................................... 24 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement ...................... 24 

Littoral Combat Ship ......................................................................... 25 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement ......... 25 

Outfitting ............................................................................................ 25 

Service craft ........................................................................................ 26 

Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs ............................. 27 

Cable ship ........................................................................................... 27 

Other navigation equipment ............................................................. 27 

DDG–1000 class support equipment ................................................ 27 

Items less than $5 million ................................................................. 28 

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules ................................. 28 

LCS anti-submarine warfare mission modules ................................ 28 

LCS surface warfare mission modules ............................................. 28 

Surface ship torpedo defense ............................................................. 29 

Cooperative Engagement Capability ................................................ 29 

Minesweeping system replacement .................................................. 29 

Shallow water mine countermeasures .............................................. 29 

Next Generation Surface Search Radar ........................................... 30 

Cryptologic communications equipment ........................................... 30 

Sonobuoys ........................................................................................... 30 

Navy port waterborne security barriers ........................................... 31 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle Survivability Upgrade ....................... 31 

Command post systems ..................................................................... 31 

Training devices ................................................................................. 32 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 32 

F–35A Joint Strike Fighter ............................................................... 32 

OA–X light attack aircraft ................................................................. 32 

KC–46A Pegasus ................................................................................ 33 

MQ–9 ................................................................................................... 34 

B–52 .................................................................................................... 34 

Long range anti-ship missile certification on the B–52 .................. 34 

A–10 replacement wing program ...................................................... 34 

F–35A modifications .......................................................................... 35 

C–130 propulsion upgrade ................................................................. 35 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System ............................. 35 

F–35A spares and repair parts ......................................................... 36 

Air Force long range anti-ship missile ............................................. 36 

Small Diameter Bomb II ................................................................... 37 

Cargo and utility vehicles .................................................................. 37 

Security and tactical vehicles ............................................................ 38 

Special purpose vehicles .................................................................... 38 

Fire fighting/crash rescue vehicles ................................................... 38 

Materials handling vehicles .............................................................. 38 

Page

V 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT —Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Air Force—Continued 

Runway snow removal and cleaning equipment ............................. 39 

Air Force physical security system ................................................... 39 

Base maintenance and support equipment ...................................... 39 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 39 

Joint Service Provider ........................................................................ 39 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 39 

Aircraft carrier acquisition ....................................................................... 39 

Army M4 Carbine Forward Extended Rails ............................................ 40 

Avoiding future work stoppages on EC–130H Compass Call Recapitalization ................................................................................................. 40 

B–2 modernization programs ................................................................... 41 

B–52 re-engining ....................................................................................... 41 

Briefing on tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition plans ........................... 42 

CH–53K Heavy Lift Replacement ............................................................ 42 

Continued F–15 C/D fleet modernization ................................................ 43 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal technology development .......................... 43 

F–35 modifications to Block 4 configuration ........................................... 43 

Ford-class sustainment and product support .......................................... 44 

Guided missile frigate (FFG(X)) ............................................................... 44 

HH–60 Combat Rescue Helicopter program ........................................... 45 

Immersive virtual shipboard environment training ............................... 45 

Intermediary Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile ..................... 45 

John Lewis-class fleet oiler multiyear procurement strategy ................ 46 

Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and small arms ... 46 

Maneuver Short Range Air Defense to counter Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems ................................................................................................... 47 

Navy equipment for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker program .................... 47 

Navy small arms weapons training ......................................................... 47 

Preservation of F–117 aircraft with certified combat sorties ................ 48 

Presidential protection .............................................................................. 48 

Report on Air Force plan for fighter aircraft .......................................... 49 

Report on Navy’s current and future state of long range strike capability ........................................................................................................ 49 

Rifle Marksmanship Training .................................................................. 49 

San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport ship multiyear procurement strategy .................................................................................. 50 

Small Unit Support Vehicle report .......................................................... 50 

Stryker A1 Production .............................................................................. 51 

Swarm attack defense of Navy ships ....................................................... 51 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 53 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 53 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 53 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 53 

Codification and reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 211) ......................................... 53 

Procedures for rapid reaction to emerging technology (sec. 212) .......... 53 

Activities on identification and development of enhanced personal 

protective equipment against blast injury (sec. 213) .......................... 54 

Human factors modeling and simulation activities (sec. 214) ............... 54 

Expansion of mission areas supported by mechanisms for expedited 

access to technical talent and expertise at academic institutions 

(sec. 215) ................................................................................................. 55 

Advanced manufacturing activities (sec. 216) ......................................... 56 

National security innovation activities (sec. 217) ................................... 56 

Partnership intermediaries for promotion of defense research and 

education (sec. 218) ................................................................................ 57 

Limitation on use of funds for Surface Navy Laser Weapon System 

(sec. 219) ................................................................................................. 57 

Expansion of coordination requirement for support for national security innovation and entrepreneurial education (sec. 220) .................. 58 

Limitation on funding for Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2 (sec. 221) . 58 

Defense quantum information science and technology research and 

development program (sec. 222) ........................................................... 58 

Joint directed energy test activities (sec. 223) ........................................ 59 

Page

VI 

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

Continued 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations —Continued 

Requirement for establishment of arrangements for expedited access 

to technical talent and expertise at academic institutions to support Department of Defense missions (sec. 224) ................................. 60 

Authority for Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to conduct 

research relating to high powered microwave capabilities (sec. 225) 60 

Joint artificial intelligence research, development, and transition activities (sec. 226) .................................................................................... 60 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 60 

Report on comparative capabilities of adversaries in key technology 

areas (sec. 231) ....................................................................................... 60 

Report on active protection systems for armored combat and tactical 

vehicles (sec. 232) .................................................................................. 61 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle (sec. 233) ............................................ 61 

Report on the future of the defense research and engineering enterprise (sec. 234) ....................................................................................... 62 

Modification of reports on mechanisms to provide funds to defense 

laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 235) ......................................................................... 63 

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

236) ......................................................................................................... 63 

Improvement of the Air Force supply chain (sec. 237) ........................... 63 

Review of guidance on blast exposure during training (sec. 238) ......... 64 

List of technologies and manufacturing capabilities critical to Armed 

Forces (sec. 239) ..................................................................................... 64 

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

240) ......................................................................................................... 65 

Competitive acquisition strategy for Bradley Fighting Vehicle transmission replacement (sec. 241) ............................................................. 65 

Independent assessment of electronic warfare plans and programs 

(sec. 242) ................................................................................................. 65 

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

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

Army defense research sciences ........................................................ 66 

Army quantum information sciences ................................................ 66 

University and industry research centers ........................................ 66 

Sensors and electronic survivability ................................................. 67 

Aviation technology ............................................................................ 67 

Weapons and munitions technology ................................................. 67 

Human factors engineering technology ............................................ 68 

Command, Control, and Communications technology .................... 68 

Aviation advanced technology ........................................................... 69 

Extended Range Cannon Artillery gun ............................................ 69 

Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology .................... 69 

Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle Prototype ......................... 69 

High performance computing modernization program ................... 70 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds for minor 

Science and Technology military construction ............................. 70 

Military engineering advanced technology ...................................... 71 

Position, navigation and timing technology ..................................... 71 

Command, Control, and Communication advanced technology ..... 71 

Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional Munition ........................... 72 

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Radio Frequency 

Exploitation—Electronic Intelligence ............................................ 72 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability ................................................... 73 

Mobile Protected Firepower .............................................................. 73 

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems—EMD (Vehicle Protection 

Suite Project) .................................................................................. 73 

Army contract writing system ........................................................... 74 

Major T&E investment ...................................................................... 74 

High energy laser testing .................................................................. 74 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 75 

Navy basic research initiatives ......................................................... 75 

Page

VII 

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

Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Navy —Continued 

Navy defense research sciences ........................................................ 75 

Navy quantum information sciences ................................................ 75 

Directed energy applied research ..................................................... 75 

Warfighter sustainment applied research ........................................ 76 

Undersea warfare applied research .................................................. 76 

Innovative Naval prototypes—applied research .............................. 76 

USMC advanced technology demonstration .................................... 76 

Innovative Naval prototypes—advanced technology development . 77 

Advanced combat systems technology .............................................. 77 

Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures ......................... 77 

Advanced submarine system development ...................................... 78 

Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform acceleration ....... 78 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules ............................................ 78 

Land attack technology ...................................................................... 79 

F/A–18 infrared search and track ..................................................... 79 

Small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles ........................... 79 

Large unmanned undersea vehicles ................................................. 80 

Littoral airborne mine countermeasures .......................................... 80 

Surface mine countermeasures ......................................................... 80 

AV–8B Aircraft—Engineering Development .................................... 80 

Physiological episode safety improvements ..................................... 81 

EA–18G cognitive electronic warfare ............................................... 81 

EA–18G offensive airborne electronic attack special mission pod . 82 

LPD–17 class systems integration .................................................... 82 

SM–6 Block 1B 21 inch rocket motor ............................................... 82 

Amphibious assault ship acceleration .............................................. 82 

Electronic Procurement System ........................................................ 83 

Navy Information Technology Systems Development ..................... 83 

Management, technical, and international support ........................ 83 

Maritime Strike Tomahawk .............................................................. 84 

Integrated surveillance system ......................................................... 84 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile extended range ............. 84 

Tactical Targeting Network Technology .......................................... 85 

F/A–18 E/F engine enhancements .................................................... 85 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle .............................................................. 85 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 86 

Air Force defense research sciences ................................................. 86 

Air Force quantum information sciences ......................................... 86 

High energy laser research initiatives ............................................. 86 

Materials ............................................................................................. 86 

Aerospace vehicle technologies .......................................................... 87 

Affordable responsive modular rocket .............................................. 87 

Multi-mode propulsion applied research .......................................... 87 

Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand ......................................... 88 

Aerospace propulsion ......................................................................... 88 

Aerospace sensors .............................................................................. 88 

Skywave Technologies Laboratory .................................................... 88 

High energy laser research ............................................................... 89 

High powered microwave research ................................................... 89 

Advanced materials for research ...................................................... 89 

Materials affordability ....................................................................... 89 

Sustainment in science and technology ............................................ 90 

Aerospace technology development and demonstration increase 

for operational energy capability improvements .......................... 90 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology .................................... 90 

Multi-mode propulsion advanced technology development ............. 91 

Technology for the sustainment of strategic systems ..................... 91 

Electronic combat technology ............................................................ 91 

Demonstrator Laser Weapons System ............................................. 92 

Prototype Tanker ............................................................................... 92 

Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon ......................................... 92 

Technology transition program ......................................................... 93 

Air Force supply chain innovation .................................................... 93 

Page

VIII 

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

Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Air Force—Continued 

Contracting Information Technology System .................................. 93 

Advanced Battle Management System ............................................. 94 

JSTARS recap radar .......................................................................... 94 

Major Test and Evaluation Management ......................................... 94 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System ............................ 94 

B–52 .................................................................................................... 95 

Airborne Early Warning and Control System ................................. 95 

Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul System ................................... 95 

Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System Increment 

2 ....................................................................................................... 96 

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

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency defense research 

sciences ............................................................................................ 96 

Critical materials ............................................................................... 96 

Defense-wide quantum information sciences ................................... 97 

Basic research initiatives .................................................................. 97 

Activities to determine more effective personal protective equipment against blast injury ............................................................... 97 

Joint munitions program ................................................................... 97 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology 

priorities .......................................................................................... 98 

Tactical technology ............................................................................. 98 

Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System ................................................................................................... 98 

Materials and biological technology .................................................. 99 

Combating terrorism technology support ......................................... 99 

Advanced aerospace systems ............................................................. 99 

Blackjack ............................................................................................. 100 

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental ........................................... 100 

Networked communications capabilities .......................................... 100 

Enhancing cybersecurity for small vendors ..................................... 100 

Defense-wide manufacturing science and technology program ...... 101 

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology program ...... 101 

Defense Logistics Agency generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations ................................................... 101 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 

and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 

increases .......................................................................................... 102 

Microelectronics technology development and support ................... 103 

Advanced electronics technologies .................................................... 103 

Network-centric warfare technology ................................................. 103 

Sensor technology ............................................................................... 103 

Quick reaction special projects .......................................................... 104 

Test and evaluation science and technology related to 

hypersonics and directed energy ................................................... 104 

Test and evaluation science and technology workforce development ................................................................................................. 104 

Operational energy capability improvement .................................... 104 

National Security Innovation Activities ........................................... 105 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase ........................ 105 

Trusted and assured microelectronics .............................................. 105 

Defense Contract Management Agency information technology 

development .................................................................................... 106 

Deputy Chief Management Officer policy and integration ............. 106 

Defense-wide electronic procurement capabilities ........................... 106 

Trusted and assured microelectronics engineering and manufacturing development ......................................................................... 107 

Hypersonic experimentation facilities .............................................. 107 

Joint mission environment test capability ....................................... 107 

Technical studies, support and analysis .......................................... 108 

Developmental Test and Evaluation ................................................ 108 

Policy research and development programs ..................................... 108 

Personnel security and continuous evaluation innovation ............. 108 

Page

IX 

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

Continued 

Budget Items —Continued 

Defense Wide—Continued 

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation cyber projects ............. 109 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 109 

AC–130J High Energy Laser .................................................................... 109 

Acoustic Threat Detection ........................................................................ 109 

Active Protection System for Abrams, Bradley, Stryker ........................ 110 

Additive manufacturing within the military departments .................... 110 

Advanced countermeasure dispenser system for 4th generation/legacy 

aircraft .................................................................................................... 111 

Advanced hull technology ......................................................................... 111 

Advanced low-weight body armor report ................................................. 111 

Aerospace sensors ...................................................................................... 111 

Airless Tire Technology Demonstration .................................................. 112 

Army Assured Mobility in Northern Regions ......................................... 112 

Combat Vehicle Light Weight Development Program ........................... 112 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense industry Independent Research and Development funding ...................................... 113 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Gremlins Air-Recoverable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System ................................................ 114 

Department of Defense Laboratory talent management and succession planning .......................................................................................... 114 

Diamond transistor technology for power conversion in combat infrastructure ................................................................................................. 114 

Fielding of radiation detection devices .................................................... 114 

Hyper Velocity Projectile .......................................................................... 115 

Improved Turbine Engine Program ......................................................... 115 

Land-Bases Anti-Ship Missile .................................................................. 116 

Military applications for Graphene .......................................................... 116 

Modernizing Towed 105 Artillery Systems ............................................. 116 

Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS) ........................ 117 

Policy issues surrounding emerging technologies for combat and noncombat use .............................................................................................. 117 

Rapid-charging hybrid energy storage fuel cells ..................................... 118 

Report on Metal Matrix Composites for Army Vehicles ........................ 118 

Research, development, and procurement of wearable and mobile 

remote power capabilities ..................................................................... 118 

Soldier Born Sensor (SBS) Program ........................................................ 118 

Surrogates for operational testing of torpedoes and torpedo defensive 

systems ................................................................................................... 119 

Technology and transition accelerators ................................................... 119 

Trusted and assured microelectronics ..................................................... 119 

Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar ........................................................ 120 

Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net System ............................................ 120 

Workforce and infrastructure for National Defense Strategy priority 

technologies ............................................................................................ 120 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 123 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 123 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 123 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environment ............................................................ 123 

Further improvements to energy security and resilience (sec. 311) ..... 123 

Funding of study and assessment of health implications of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water by 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (sec. 312) ........... 123 

Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 313) ............ 123 

Operational energy policy (sec. 314) ........................................................ 123 

Funding treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and 

perfluorooctanoic acid at State-owned and operated National Guard 

installations (sec. 315) ........................................................................... 124 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 124 

Reports on readiness (sec. 321) ................................................................ 124 

Report on cold weather capabilities and readiness of United States 

Armed Forces (sec. 322) ........................................................................ 124 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 124 

Page

X 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Subtitle D—Other Matters —Continued 

Pilot programs on integration of military information support and 

civil affairs activities (sec. 331) ............................................................ 124 

Reporting on future years budgeting by subactivity group (sec. 332) ... 125 

Restriction on upgrades to aviation demonstration team aircraft (sec. 

333) ......................................................................................................... 125 

U.S. Special Operations Command civilian personnel (sec. 334) .......... 125 

Limitation on availability of funds for service-specific Defense Readiness Reporting Systems (sec. 335) ........................................................ 126 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) ................. 126 

Limitation on availability of funds for establishment of additional 

specialized undergraduate pilot training facility (sec. 337) ............... 126 

Scope of authority for restoration of land due to mishap (sec. 338) ...... 127 

Redesignation of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) (sec. 

339) ......................................................................................................... 127 

Subtitle E—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 127 

Limitation on modifications to Navy Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) structure and mechanism (sec. 

351) ......................................................................................................... 127 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 127 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase ......... 127 

Army marketing and advertising reduction ............................................ 127 

Army Operation and Maintenance budget request for civilian pay ...... 128 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase for 

sensor integration .................................................................................. 128 

Enterprise information reduction ............................................................ 128 

Navy facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization increase 128 

F–35 depot component repair capability ................................................. 129 

Air Force demolition increases ................................................................. 129 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System weapons system 

sustainment ............................................................................................ 129 

Air Force weapon system sustainment increases ................................... 130 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System flight hours ............... 130 

Deployable airbase systems ...................................................................... 130 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System personnel ................... 131 

Air National Guard increase per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance environmental restoration funding transfer ............................................... 131 

Plan for incorporating logistics sustainment under attack into war 

games ...................................................................................................... 132 

Defense Security Service .......................................................................... 132 

Personnel security background investigations ........................................ 133 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 133 

Center for Disease Control study increase .............................................. 133 

Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse increase .......................... 134 

Defense Environmental International Cooperation program increase . 134 

Department of Defense emerging contaminants increase ...................... 134 

Department of Defense environmental resiliency increase .................... 135 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction .............................. 135 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative .............................. 135 

Air Force decrease per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance environmental 

restoration funding transfer ................................................................. 136 

Foreign currency fluctuations .................................................................. 136 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps increase .................................. 136 

Air Force Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup ......................... 136 

Air National Guard Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup ........ 137 

Army Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup ............................... 137 

Navy Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup ................................ 137 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 137 

Air Force runway infrastructure .............................................................. 137 

All services marketing audit .................................................................... 138 

Ammunition plant reform and stockpile of explosives ........................... 138 

Arctic search and rescue ........................................................................... 139 

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

Africa Command .................................................................................... 140 

Assessment of Department of Defense installation management ......... 140 

Assessment of hybrid electric drive performance ................................... 142 

Page

XI 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Items of Special Interest —Continued 

Battery storage and safety programs clarification ................................. 142 

Battery storage technology ....................................................................... 143 

Briefing on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry PFAS 

report ...................................................................................................... 143 

Building energy resilience on military installations .............................. 143 

Comptroller General review of Defense-wide Working Capital Fund 

overhead charges and fees .................................................................... 144 

Congressional notification of incidents .................................................... 144 

Corrosion prevention and oversight ......................................................... 145 

Cost benefit analysis of alternative-fueled vehicles and infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 146 

Cost benefit analysis on conducting organic depot level maintenance 

on the joint surveillance target attack radar system ......................... 146 

Depot best practices .................................................................................. 147 

Development of future fluorine-free fire fighting foams ........................ 148 

Employment of Special Operations Forces .............................................. 149 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training program .. 149 

Establishment of the energy resilience project development and implementation office ................................................................................ 150 

Establishment of the occupational group for federal energy managers 151 

Guidance on utility privatization contracts ............................................. 151 

High purity aluminum .............................................................................. 151 

High-energy intensity report .................................................................... 152 

High-pressure cold spray repair ............................................................... 152 

Leveraging non-Department funds to address infrastructure maintenance backlogs and project delays ........................................................ 152 

Light emitting diodes for aviation applications ...................................... 153 

M240 medium machine gun modernization ............................................ 153 

Maintaining current balance of government and private contractors 

under 10 U.S.C. 2466 ............................................................................ 154 

Marine Corps Base of the Future ............................................................ 155 

Marine Corps Policy on flame-resistant uniforms .................................. 155 

Military working dogs ............................................................................... 156 

Navy next generation small arms weapons training and readiness 

requirements .......................................................................................... 156 

Operational energy technologies .............................................................. 157 

Paint training programs ........................................................................... 157 

Predicting soil-terrain-atmospheric conditions ....................................... 158 

Privatization of stormwater conveyance systems ................................... 158 

Report on transportation infrastructure critical to Eastern Range 

space operations ..................................................................................... 158 

Report on universal camouflage inventory and use ............................... 159 

Review of Department of Defense mission assurance program ............. 160 

Review of the Navy’s shipyard improvement plan ................................. 161 

Rough terrain container handler ............................................................. 162 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command common and logistics broker waiver process ..................................................................... 163 

Use of fire extinguishers in Department of Defense facilities and 

National Model Codes ........................................................................... 163 

Use of Global Combat Support System-Army by deployed units .......... 163 

Water resources for Department of Defense installations ..................... 164 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 165 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 165 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 165 

End strengths for commissioned officers on active duty in certain 

grades (sec. 402) ..................................................................................... 166 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 166 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 166 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 166 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 167 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 414) ................................................ 167 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 167 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 167 

Page

XII 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS —Continued 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations —Continued 

Limitation on use of funds for personnel in fiscal year 2019 in excess 

of statutorily specified end strengths for fiscal year 2018 (sec. 

422) ......................................................................................................... 168 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 168 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 168 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 169 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 169 

Part I—Officer Personnel Management Reform ..................................... 169 

Modernizing officer personnel management in support of the National Defense Strategy .................................................................. 169 

Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths of certain 

commissioned officers on active duty (sec. 501) ........................... 172 

Annual defense manpower requirements report matters (sec. 

502) .................................................................................................. 172 

Repeal of requirement for ability to complete 20 years of service 

by age 62 as qualification for original appointment as a regular 

commissioned officer (sec. 503) ...................................................... 173 

Enhancement of availability of constructive service credit for 

private sector training or experience upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 504) .................................... 173 

Standardized temporary promotion authority across the military 

departments for officers in certain grades with critical skills 

(sec. 505) .......................................................................................... 174 

Authority for promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit be placed higher on a promotion list (sec. 506) ..... 175 

Authority for officers to opt out of promotion board consideration 

(sec. 507) .......................................................................................... 176 

Competitive category matters (sec. 508) .......................................... 176 

Promotion zone matters (sec. 509) .................................................... 176 

Alternative promotion authority for officers in designated competitive categories of officers (sec. 510) ......................................... 177 

Applicability to additional officer grades of authority for continuation on active duty of officers in certain military specialties 

and career tracks (sec. 511) ........................................................... 179 

Part II—Other Matters ............................................................................. 179 

Matters relating to satisfactory service in grade for purposes 

of retirement grade of officers in highest grade of satisfactory 

service (sec. 516) ............................................................................. 179 

Reduction in number of years of active naval service required 

for permanent appointment as a limited duty officer (sec. 517) . 180 

Repeal of original appointment qualification requirement for 

warrant officers in the regular Army (sec. 518) ........................... 180 

Uniform grade of service of the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 519) .............................................................................. 180 

Written justification for appointment of Chiefs of Chaplains in 

grade below grade of major general or rear admiral (sec. 520) .. 180 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 180 

Authority to adjust effective date of promotion in the event of undue 

delay in extending Federal recognition of promotion (sec. 521) ......... 180 

Authority to designate certain reserve officers as not to be considered 

for selection for promotion (sec. 522) ................................................... 180 

Expansion of personnel subject to authority of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the execution of functions and missions 

of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 523) ............................................. 181 

Repeal of prohibition on service on Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee by members on active duty (sec. 524) ...................................... 181 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 181 

Assessment of Navy standard workweek and related adjustments 

(sec. 531) ................................................................................................. 181 

Manning of Forward Deployed Naval Forces (sec. 532) ......................... 182 

Navy watchstander records (sec. 533) ..................................................... 182 

Qualification experience requirements for certain Navy watchstations 

(sec. 534) ................................................................................................. 182 

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

review of discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces (sec. 535) .. 182 

Page

XIII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities—Continued 

Treatment of claims relating to military sexual trauma in correction 

of military records and review of discharge or dismissal proceedings (sec. 536) .................................................................................. 182 

Subtitle D—Military Justice Matters ............................................................. 183 

Punitive article on domestic violence under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (sec. 541) ..................................................................... 183 

Inclusion of strangulation and suffocation in conduct constituting 

aggravated assault for purposes of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (sec. 542) .................................................................................... 183 

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

543) ......................................................................................................... 183 

Protective orders against individuals subject to the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (sec. 544) ................................................................. 183 

Expansion of eligibility for Special Victims’ Counsel services (sec. 

545) ......................................................................................................... 183 

Clarification of expiration of term of appellate military judges of 

the United States Court of Military Commission Review (sec. 546) . 183 

Expansion of policies on expedited transfer of members of the Armed 

Forces who are victims of sexual assault (sec. 547) ............................ 184 

Uniform command action form on disposition of unrestricted sexual 

assault cases involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 548) ..... 184 

Inclusion of information on certain collateral conduct of victims of 

sexual assault in annual reports on sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 549) ..................................................... 184 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, Transition, and Resilience ........ 184 

Consecutive service of service obligation in connection with payment 

of tuition for off-duty training or education for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces with any other service obligations (sec. 

551) ......................................................................................................... 184 

Consecutive service of active service obligations for medical training 

with other service obligations for education or training (sec. 552) .... 184 

Clarification of application and honorable service requirements under 

the Troops-to-Teachers Program to members of the Retired Reserve 

(sec. 553) ................................................................................................. 185 

Prohibition on use of funds for attendance of enlisted personnel at 

senior level and intermediate level officer professional military education courses (sec. 554) ........................................................................ 185 

Repeal of program on encouragement of postseparation public and 

community service (sec. 555) ................................................................ 185 

Expansion of authority to assist members in obtaining professional 

credentials (sec. 556) ............................................................................. 185 

Enhancement of authorities in connection with Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs (sec. 557) ............................................. 185 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 186 

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 186 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies 

that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and 

Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561) .................. 186 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) ............. 186 

Department of Defense Education Activity policies and procedures on sexual harassment of students of Activity schools 

(sec. 563) .......................................................................................... 186 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters .......................................... 187 

Improvement of authority to conduct family support programs 

for immediate family members of the Armed Forces assigned 

to special operations forces (sec. 566) ........................................... 187 

Expansion of period of availability of Military OneSource program for retired and discharged members of the Armed Forces 

and their immediate families (sec. 567) ........................................ 187 

Expansion of authority for noncompetitive appointments of military spouses by Federal agencies (sec. 568) ................................. 187 

Improvement of My Career Advancement Account program for 

military spouses (sec. 569) ............................................................. 187 

Page

XIV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

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

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters—Continued 

Access to military installations for certain surviving spouses and 

other next of kin of members of the Armed Forces who die 

while on active duty or certain reserve duty (sec. 570) ............... 188 

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council matters (sec. 571) .................................................................................. 188 

Multidisciplinary teams for military installations on child abuse 

and other domestic violence (sec. 572) .......................................... 188 

Provisional or interim clearances to provide childcare services 

at military childcare centers (sec. 573) ......................................... 189 

Pilot program on prevention of child abuse and training on safe 

childcare practices among military families (sec. 574) ................ 189 

Pilot program on participation of military spouses in Transition 

Assistance Program activities (sec. 575) ....................................... 190 

Small business activities of military spouses on military installations in the United States (sec. 576) ............................................. 190 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 190 

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross for Justin 

T. Gallegos for acts of valor during Operation Enduring Freedom 

(sec. 581) ................................................................................................. 190 

Award of medals or other commendations to handlers of military 

working dogs (sec. 582) ......................................................................... 190 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 190 

Authority to award damaged personal protective equipment to members separating from the Armed Forces and veterans as mementos 

of military service (sec. 591) ................................................................. 190 

Standardization of frequency of academy visits of the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors with academy visits of boards of other military service academies (sec. 592) .......................................................... 191 

Redesignation of the Commandant of the United States Air Force 

Institute of Technology as President of the United States Air Force 

Institute of Technology (sec. 593) ......................................................... 191 

Limitation on justifications entered by military recruiters for enlistment or accession of individuals into the Armed Forces (sec. 594) ... 191 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service matters (sec. 595) ......................................................................................... 191 

Burial of unclaimed remains of inmates at the United States Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (sec. 596) ....... 191 

Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft for veterans 

with service-connected disabilities rated as total (sec. 597) ............... 192 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 192 

Administrative separation protections for members of the Armed 

Forces ...................................................................................................... 192 

Assessment of Department of Defense Education Activity’s policies 

and procedures on student misconduct ................................................ 192 

Assessment of relocation of family members .......................................... 193 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense original appointment and scrolling processes ........................................................ 193 

Comptroller General study of dependency determinations for incapacitated adult children of military members ..................................... 194 

Dependent care flexible savings accounts ............................................... 194 

Facilitation of separation process and State veterans affairs offices .... 195 

Improvements to licensure and credentialing for military spouses ...... 195 

Inclusion of the study of hybrid warfare in professional military 

education ................................................................................................ 197 

Military childcare subsidies ...................................................................... 197 

National Guard Federal promotion delays .............................................. 197 

National Guard mental health pilot program ......................................... 198 

Permanent change of station frequency and impact on military families ........................................................................................................... 198 

Public-private partnerships on military installations ............................ 199 

Reimbursement for certain costs incurred by states during domestic 

emergencies ............................................................................................ 199 

Page

XV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY —Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Responding to cases of traumatic brain injury sustained in intimate 

partner violence event ........................................................................... 200 

Senior Military Acquisition Advisor eligibility ....................................... 200 

Specialized workshops for transitioning servicemembers ...................... 201 

Training requirement for background check submissions ..................... 202 

Understanding military family experiences of intimate partner violence and child abuse and neglect ........................................................ 202 

Use of data analytics to facilitate assignment matching and military 

family stability ....................................................................................... 203 

Use of reserve personnel for the Cyber Mission Force ........................... 203 

Warm handoff for transitioning servicemembers suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury ........................ 203 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 205 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 205 

Fiscal year 2019 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 205 

Repeal of authority for payment of personal money allowances to 

Navy officers serving in certain positions (sec. 602) ........................... 205 

Department of Defense proposal for a pay table for members of 

the Armed Forces using steps in grade based on time in grade 

rather than time in service (sec. 603) .................................................. 205 

Financial support for lessors under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative during 2019 (sec. 604) ................................................... 205 

Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay 

adjustment in annual basic pay of members of the uniformed services (sec. 605) .......................................................................................... 206 

Eligibility of reserve component members for high-deployment allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments and frequent mobilizations (sec. 606) ....................................................................................... 206 

Eligibility of reserve component members for nonreduction in pay 

while serving in the uniformed services or National Guard (sec. 

607) ......................................................................................................... 207 

Temporary adjustment in rate of basic allowance for housing following identification of significant underdetermination of civilian 

housing costs for housing areas (sec. 608) ........................................... 207 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 207 

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay authorities (sec. 611) .......................................................................................... 207 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits .................. 208 

Technical corrections in calculation and publication of special survivor indemnity allowance cost of living adjustments (sec. 621) ....... 208 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 208 

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

631) ......................................................................................................... 208 

Prohibition on per diem allowance reductions based on the duration 

of temporary duty assignment or civilian travel (sec. 632) ................ 208 

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

Defense Commissary Agency and small businesses ............................... 208 

Privatized on-base lodging program ........................................................ 208 

Small business access to military exchange stores ................................. 209 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 211 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits ................................... 211 

Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Select 

and TRICARE Prime (sec. 701) ............................................................ 211 

Administration of TRICARE dental plans through the Federal Employees Dental Insurance Program (sec. 702) ..................................... 211 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE Program (sec. 

703) ......................................................................................................... 212 

Pilot program on opioid management in the military health system 

(sec. 704) ................................................................................................. 212 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for 

post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma 

(sec. 705) ................................................................................................. 212 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 213 

Improvement of administration of Defense Health Agency and military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711) ......................................... 213 

Page

XVI 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration—Continued 

Organizational framework of the military healthcare system to support medical requirements of the combatant commands (sec. 712) ... 214 

Streamlining of TRICARE Prime beneficiary referral process (sec. 

713) ......................................................................................................... 215 

Sharing of information with State prescription drug monitoring programs (sec. 714) ..................................................................................... 215 

Improvement of reimbursement by Department of Defense of entities 

carrying out state vaccination programs in connection with vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program (sec. 715) ....................................................................................... 216 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 216 

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 

721) ......................................................................................................... 216 

Increase in number of appointed members of the Henry M. Jackson 

Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (sec. 722) ..... 216 

Cessation of requirement for mental health assessment of members 

after redeployment from a contingency operation upon discharge 

or release from the Armed Forces (sec. 723) ....................................... 217 

Pilot program on earning by special operations forces medics of credits towards a physician assistant degree (sec. 724) ............................ 217 

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations for specialized medical training (sec. 725) ............................................................ 217 

Registry of individuals exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

on military installations (sec. 726) ....................................................... 218 

Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments for members 

of the Armed Forces and related research efforts (sec. 727) .............. 218 

Comptroller General review of Defense Health Agency oversight of 

TRICARE managed care support contractors (sec. 728) .................... 218 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 219 

Critical gaps in military physician specialties ........................................ 219 

Emerging technologies to mitigate and prevent traumatic brain injury ..... 220 

Expedited development and approval of medical products for emergency use on the battlefield .................................................................. 220 

Explore feasibility of implementing a combat readiness assessment 

tool .......................................................................................................... 220 

Extended Care Health Option respite care services ............................... 221 

Health risk surveillance of servicemembers in the United States Special Operations Command ..................................................................... 221 

MHS GENESIS ................................................................................................. 221 

Mild traumatic brain injury screening tests ........................................... 222 

Procurement of telehealth solutions and services .................................. 222 

Prostate cancer incidence among Active-Duty servicemembers ............ 222 

Rapid cerebral therapeutic hypothermia ................................................. 223 

Regenerative medicine research and development ................................. 223 

Tricare access study .................................................................................. 223 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 225 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 225 

Permanent Supply Chain Risk Management Authority (sec. 801) ....... 225 

Commercially available market research (sec. 802) ............................... 225 

Comptroller General assessment on acquisition programs and related 

initiatives (sec. 803) ............................................................................... 225 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 226 

Department of Defense contracting dispute matters (sec. 811) ............. 226 

Continuation of technical data rights during challenges (sec. 812) ...... 227 

Increased micro-purchase threshold (sec. 813) ....................................... 227 

Modification of limitations on single source task or delivery order 

contracts (sec. 814) ................................................................................ 227 

Preliminary cost analysis requirement for exercise of multiyear contract authority (sec. 815) ....................................................................... 227 

Inclusion of best available information regarding past performance 

of subcontractors and joint venture partners (sec. 816) ..................... 227 

Page

XVII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations—Continued 

Modification of criteria for waivers of requirement for certified cost 

and price data (sec. 817) ....................................................................... 228 

Subcontracting price and approved purchasing systems (sec. 818) ...... 228 

Comptroller General of the United States report on progress payment 

financing of Department of Defense contracts (sec. 819) ................... 228 

Authorization to limit foreign access to technology through contracts 

(sec. 820) ................................................................................................. 228 

Briefing requirement on services contracts (sec. 821) ............................ 228 

Sense of Congress on awarding of contracts to responsible companies 

that primarily employ American workers and do not actively transfer American jobs to potential adversaries (sec. 822) ......................... 229 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 229 

Program cost, fielding, and performance goals in planning major 

acquisition programs (sec. 831) ............................................................ 229 

Implementation of recommendations of the Independent Study on 

Consideration of Sustainment in Weapons Systems Life Cycle (sec. 

832) ......................................................................................................... 229 

Pilot program to accelerate major weapons system programs (sec. 

833) ......................................................................................................... 229 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce ........................... 230 

Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to acquisition personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 841) ......... 230 

Establishment of integrated review team on defense acquisition industry-government exchange (sec. 842) ............................................... 230 

Exchange program for acquisition workforce employees (sec. 843) ....... 230 

Subtitle E—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items .................................. 231 

Report on commercial item procurement reform (sec. 851) ................... 231 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters .............................................................. 231 

National technology and industrial base application process (sec. 

861) ......................................................................................................... 231 

Report on defense electronics industrial base (sec. 862) ........................ 231 

Support for defense manufacturing communities to support the defense industrial base (sec. 863) ............................................................. 232 

Subtitle G—Other Transactions ...................................................................... 232 

Change to notification requirement for other transactions (sec. 871) ... 232 

Data and policy on the use of other transactions (sec. 872) .................. 232 

Subtitle H—Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive and Digital Products and Services ............................................................................ 232 

Clarifications regarding proprietary and technical data (sec. 881) ....... 232 

Implementation of recommendations of the final report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Design and Acquisition 

of Software for Defense Systems (sec. 882) ......................................... 233 

Implementation of pilot program to use agile or iterative development 

methods under section 873 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (sec. 883) ....................................................... 233 

Enabling and other activities of the Cloud Executive Steering Group 

(sec. 884) ................................................................................................. 234 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 235 

Prohibition on certain telecommunications services or equipment (sec. 

891) ......................................................................................................... 235 

Limitation on use of funds pending submittal of report on Army 

Marketing and Advertising Program (sec. 892) .................................. 235 

Permanent SBIR and STTR authority for the Department of Defense 

(sec. 893) ................................................................................................. 235 

Procurement of telecommunications supplies for experimental purposes (sec. 894) ....................................................................................... 235 

Access by developmental and operational testing activities to data 

regarding modeling and simulation activity (sec. 895) ....................... 235 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 236 

Analysis of technical and security issues in Department of Defense 

business systems .................................................................................... 236 

Assessment of Superior Supplier Incentive Programs ........................... 236 

Page

XVIII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Incorporation of agile methods for testing in prototyping and streamlined fielding initiatives ........................................................................ 236 

Master plan for organic industrial base infrastructure ......................... 237 

Serviceability and control of technical data ............................................ 238 

Use of Federal Aviation Administration approval for Department 

of Defense commercial derivative aircraft ........................................... 239 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 241 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters .......... 241 

Powers and duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research 

and Engineering in connection with priority emerging technologies 

(sec. 901) ................................................................................................. 241 

Redesignation and modification of responsibilities of Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (sec. 902) ............................. 241 

Modification of responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy (sec. 903) ................................................................................ 243 

Report on allocation of former responsibilities of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (sec. 904) ....... 243 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, Assessments, 

Readiness, and Capabilities (sec. 905) ................................................. 243 

Clarification of responsibilities and duties of the Chief Information 

Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 906) .................................. 245 

Specification of certain duties of the Defense Technical Information 

Center (sec. 907) .................................................................................... 246 

Limitation on termination of, and transfer of functions, responsibilities, and activities of, the Strategic Capabilities Office (sec. 908) .... 246 

Technical corrections to Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center authority (sec. 909) .................................................... 246 

Subtitle B—Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense Offices and Elements .......................................................................... 247 

Modification of certain responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff relating to joint force concept development (sec. 

921) ......................................................................................................... 247 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict review of United States Special Operations Command 

(sec. 922) ................................................................................................. 247 

Qualifications for appointment as Deputy Chief Management Officer 

of a military department (sec. 923) ...................................................... 248 

Expansion of principal duties of Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

for Research, Development, and Acquisition (sec. 924) ...................... 248 

Cross-functional teams in the Department of Defense (sec. 925) .......... 248 

Deadline for completion of full implementation of requirements in 

connection with organization of the Department of Defense for 

management of special operations forces and special operations 

(sec. 926) ................................................................................................. 251 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of the Department of Defense 

Generally ....................................................................................................... 253 

Limitation on availability of funds for major headquarters activities 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 931) .............................................. 253 

Responsibility for policy on civilian casualty matters (sec. 932) ........... 253 

Additional matters in connection with background and security investigations for Department of Defense personnel (sec. 933) .................. 253 

Program of expedited security clearances for mission-critical positions 

(sec. 934) ................................................................................................. 254 

Information sharing program for positions of trust (sec. 935) ............... 254 

Report on clearance in person concept (sec. 936) .................................... 254 

Strategic Defense Fellows Program (sec. 937) ........................................ 254 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 255 

Analysis of Department of Defense business management and operations datasets to promote savings and efficiencies (sec. 941) ........... 255 

Research and development to advance capabilities of the Department 

of Defense in data integration and advanced analytics in connection with personnel security (sec. 942) ................................................. 255 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 256 

Page

XIX 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Department of Defense personnel security resourcing plans and 

needs ....................................................................................................... 256 

Department of Defense security clearance responsibilities ................... 256 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic ............................ 257 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 259 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 259 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 259 

Inclusion of funds for Air Force pass-through items in Defense-wide 

budget for the Department of Defense (sec. 1002) .............................. 259 

Report on shift in requests for funds for Department of Defense 

activities from funds for overseas contingency operations to funds 

through the base budget (sec. 1003) ..................................................... 259 

Ranking of auditability of financial statements of the organizations 

and elements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1004) .................... 260 

Transparency of accounting firms used to support Department of 

Defense audit (sec. 1005) ...................................................................... 260 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 260 

Date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the Naval Vessel 

Register and other fleet inventory measures (sec. 1011) .................... 260 

Annual reports on examination of Navy vessels (sec. 1012) .................. 260 

Limitation on duration of homeporting of certain vessels in foreign 

locations (sec. 1013) ............................................................................... 261 

Specific authorization requirement for nuclear refueling of aircraft 

carriers (sec. 1014) ................................................................................. 261 

Dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (sec. 

1015) ....................................................................................................... 261 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016) .............................................. 262 

Limitation on use of funds for retirement of hospital ships (sec. 

1017) ....................................................................................................... 262 

Subtitle C—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 263 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 

individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1021) ........................................ 263 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022) ... 263 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 

individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1023) ......................................... 263 

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

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

1024) ....................................................................................................... 263 

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily 

for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1025) ..................... 264 

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 264 

Strategic guidance documents within the Department of Defense (sec. 

1031) ....................................................................................................... 264 

Guidance on the electronic warfare mission area and joint electromagnetic spectrum operations (sec. 1032) ........................................... 265 

Limitation on use of funds for United States Special Operations 

Command Global Messaging and Counter-Messaging platform (sec. 

1033) ....................................................................................................... 266 

Sense of Congress on the basing of KC–46A aircraft outside the 

continental United States (sec. 1034) .................................................. 267 

Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction of criminal offenses committed by juveniles on military installations (sec. 1035) .................... 267 

Policy on response to juvenile-on-juvenile abuse committed on military installations (sec. 1036) ................................................................. 267 

Subtitle E—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 267 

Report on highest-priority roles and missions of the Department of 

Defense and the Armed Forces (sec. 1041) .......................................... 267 

Page

XX 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Studies and Reports—Continued 

Annual reports by the Armed Forces on Out-Year Unconstrained 

Total Munitions Requirements and Out-Year inventory numbers 

(sec. 1042) ............................................................................................... 268 

Comprehensive review of operational and administrative chains-ofcommand and functions of the Department of the Navy (sec. 1043) . 268 

Military aviation readiness review in support of the National Defense 

Strategy (sec. 1044) ............................................................................... 268 

Report on capabilities and capacities of Armored Brigade Combat 

Teams (sec. 1045) ................................................................................... 269 

Improvement of annual report on civilian casualties in connection 

with United States military operations (sec. 1046) ............................ 269 

Report on Department of Defense participation in Export Administration Regulations license application review process (sec. 1047) ........ 269 

Automatic sunset for future statutory reporting requirements (sec. 

1048) ....................................................................................................... 270 

Repeal of certain Department of Defense reporting requirements that 

otherwise terminate as of December 31, 2021 (sec. 1049) .................. 270 

Report on potential improvements to certain military educational 

institutions of the Department of Defense (sec. 1050) ........................ 270 

Recruiting costs of the Armed Forces (sec. 1051) ................................... 270 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 270 

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup (sec. 1061) ... 270 

Improvement of database on emergency response capabilities (sec. 

1062) ....................................................................................................... 271 

Acceptance and distribution by Department of Defense of assistance 

from certain nonprofit entities in support of missions of deployed 

United States personnel around the world (sec. 1063) ....................... 271 

United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation and overflight (sec. 1064) ..................................................................................... 271 

Prohibition of funds for Chinese language instruction provided by 

a Confucius Institute (sec. 1065) .......................................................... 272 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 272 

Audit materiality standards relating to valuation ................................. 272 

Business case analysis for the 168th Air Refueling Wing ..................... 272 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response Enterprise . 273 

Comptroller General report on monitoring ongoing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community ....................................................... 274 

Comptroller General review of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers ...................................................................................... 274 

Department of Defense information operations ...................................... 275 

Marine Mammal Program and Support to Civil Authorities ................. 276 

Navy mine countermeasures aboard vessels of opportunity .................. 276 

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life assessment .............................. 277 

Overclassification of Department of Defense information ..................... 277 

Policy of the Department of Defense on contract terms to support 

achievement of full financial audits ..................................................... 278 

Report on training and readiness of Navy surface ships ....................... 278 

Review of Surface Warfare Officer initial training ................................. 278 

Strategic dispersal of capital ships .......................................................... 279 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 281 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters ................................................. 281 

Inapplicability of certification of executive qualifications by qualification review boards of Office of Personnel Management for initial 

appointments to Senior Executive Service positions in Department 

of Defense (sec. 1101) ............................................................................ 281 

Direct hire authority for science and technology reinvention laboratories and Major Range and Test Facilities Base facilities for recent 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates of minority-serving institutions (sec. 1102) .................................................. 281 

Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation 

Unit Experimental of the Department of Defense in personnel 

management authority to attract experts in science and engineering (sec. 1103) ........................................................................................ 281 

Page

XXI 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters—Continued 

Enhancement of flexible management authorities for Science and 

Technology Reinvention Laboratories of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1104) ............................................................................................... 281 

Inclusion of Office of Secretary of Defense among components of 

the Department of Defense covered by direct hire authority for 

financial management experts (sec. 1105) ........................................... 282 

Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Joint Special 

Operations University (sec. 1106) ........................................................ 282 

Subtitle B—Government-Wide Matters .......................................................... 282 

Alcohol testing of civil service mariners of the Military Sealift Command assigned to vessels (sec. 1121) ................................................... 282 

Expedited hiring authority for college graduates and post secondary 

students (sec. 1122) ............................................................................... 282 

Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay 

authorized for civilian employees (sec. 1123) ...................................... 282 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty in a combat 

zone (sec. 1124) ...................................................................................... 283 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian 

employees working overseas (sec. 1125) .............................................. 283 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 283 

Competitive salary and benefits for science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics professionals ............................................................. 283 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 285 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 285 

Clarification of authority for use of advisors and trainers for training 

of personnel of foreign ministries with security missions under 

defense institution capacity building authorities (sec. 1201) ............. 285 

Modification to Department of Defense State Partnership Program 

(sec. 1202) ............................................................................................... 285 

Expansion of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to include irregular warfare (sec. 1203) ..................................... 285 

Extension and modification of authority to support border security 

operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 1204) .............................. 286 

Legal and policy review of advise, assist, and accompany missions 

(sec. 1205) ............................................................................................... 286 

Technical corrections relating to defense security cooperation statutory reorganization (sec. 1206) ............................................................. 286 

Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training School (sec. 

1207) ....................................................................................................... 286 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan ........................ 287 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1211) ........................................ 287 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 

coalition nations for support provided to United States military 

operations (sec. 1212) ............................................................................ 288 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan 

(sec. 1213) ............................................................................................... 288 

Modification of reporting requirements for special immigrant visas 

for Afghan allies program (sec. 1214) .................................................. 289 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, And Iran ................................. 289 

Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic 

State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1221) ....................................................... 289 

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the 

vetted Syrian opposition (sec. 1222) ..................................................... 290 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 

activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223) ... 291 

Syria Study Group (sec. 1224) .................................................................. 292 

Modification of annual report on military power of Iran (sec. 1225) .... 292 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation ........ 292 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United 

States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1231) ................................... 292 

Limitation on availability of funds relating to sovereignty of the 

Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1232) ....................................... 292 

Page

XXII 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation— 

Continued 

Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1233) ........... 293 

Sense of Senate on relocation of Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex 

(sec. 1234) ............................................................................................... 294 

Sense of Senate on enhancing deterrence against Russian aggression 

in Europe (sec. 1235) ............................................................................. 294 

Technical amendments related to NATO Support and Procurement 

Organization and related NATO agreements (sec. 1236) ................... 295 

Report on security cooperation between the Russian Federation and 

Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (sec. 1237) ...................................... 295 

Sense of Senate on countering Russian malign influence (sec. 1238) ... 295 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Indo–Pacific Region ............................. 296 

Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia Maritime 

Security Initiative (sec. 1241) ............................................................... 296 

Modification of annual report on military and security developments 

involving the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1242) .......................... 297 

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1243) .................................................... 298 

Redesignation and modification of sense of Congress and initiative 

for the Indo-Asia-Pacific region (sec. 1244) ......................................... 298 

Prohibition on participation of the People’s Republic of China in 

Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises (sec. 1245) ................... 298 

Assessment of and report on geopolitical conditions in the IndoPacific region (sec. 1246) ....................................................................... 298 

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship (sec. 

1247) ....................................................................................................... 299 

Sense of Senate on strategic importance of maintaining commitments 

under Compacts of Free Association (sec. 1248) ................................. 299 

Sense of the Senate on United States military forces on the Korean 

Peninsula (sec. 1249) ............................................................................. 299 

Subtitle F—Reports .......................................................................................... 300 

Report on military and coercive activities of the People’s Republic 

of China in the South China Sea (sec. 1251) ....................................... 300 

Report on terrorist use of human shields (sec. 1252) ............................. 300 

Report on Arctic strategies (sec. 1253) .................................................... 300 

Report on permanent stationing of a United States Army brigade 

combat team in the Republic of Poland (sec. 1254) ............................ 301 

Reports on nuclear capabilities of the Democratic People’s Republic 

of Korea (sec. 1255) ................................................................................ 301 

Report on United States military training opportunities with allies 

and partners in the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1256) ............................ 301 

Subtitle G—Others Matters ............................................................................ 302 

Modification of authorities relating to acquisition and cross-servicing 

agreements (sec. 1261) .......................................................................... 302 

Extension of authority for transfer of amounts for Global Engagement Center (sec. 1262) ......................................................................... 302 

Sense of Senate on purchase by Turkey of S–400 air defense system 

(sec. 1263) ............................................................................................... 303 

Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in national 

security interest of the United States (sec. 1264) ............................... 304 

Enhancement of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation (sec. 1265) ................. 304 

Certifications regarding actions by Saudi Arabia in Yemen (sec. 

1266) ....................................................................................................... 305 

Sense of the Senate on support for G5 Sahel Joint Force countries 

(sec. 1267) ............................................................................................... 305 

Sense of Congress on broadening and expanding strategic partnerships and allies (sec. 1268) ................................................................... 305 

Removal of Turkey from the F–35 program (sec. 1269) ......................... 305 

Increase in minimum amount of obligations from the Special Defense 

Acquisition Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 1270) ............ 306 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 306 

Advise and assist efforts in Afghanistan ................................................. 306 

Clarification of authority to waive certain expenses for activities 

of regional centers for security studies ................................................ 307 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies ................................... 307 

Human rights in Burma ........................................................................... 308 

Page

XXIII 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Matters relating to Kosovo ....................................................................... 309 

Notifications for sensitive military operations ........................................ 310 

Report on U.S. assistance to the Lebanese Security Forces .................. 311 

Report on WRSA–I Stockpile Quantity Review ...................................... 312 

Role of Turkey in the F–35 supply chain ................................................ 312 

United States-Mexico military cooperation ............................................. 313 

United States policy and strategy in the Western Balkans ................... 314 

U.S. Africa Command ............................................................................... 315 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 317 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301) .......... 317 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 317 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 319 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 319 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) ............................................................ 319 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402) ....... 319 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1403) ....................................................................................................... 319 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) ..................................................... 319 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) ........................................................ 319 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 319 

Consolidation of reporting requirements under the Strategic and 

Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (sec. 1411) .................................... 319 

Subtitle C—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 319 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1421) ............................................................................................... 319 

Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (sec. 1422) .................................................................................... 320 

Oversight of health care provided to residents of the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (sec. 1423) ................................................................ 320 

Modification of authority on acceptance of gifts for the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (sec. 1424) ................................................................ 320 

Relief for residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home impacted 

by increase in fees (sec. 1425) ............................................................... 320 

Limitation on applicability of fee increase for residents of the Armed 

Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1426) .................................................... 321 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 321 

Authority for transfer of funds to joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund 

for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois (sec. 

1431) ....................................................................................................... 321 

Economical and efficient operation of working capital fund activities 

(sec. 1432) ............................................................................................... 321 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 321 

Assessment on material shortfalls in United States Forces Korea 

for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defenses ............... 321 

Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile .................................. 322 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 323 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 323 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 323 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) .......................................... 323 

Procurement (sec. 1503) ............................................................................ 323 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) ....................... 323 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) .................................................. 323 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) .................................................................. 323 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) ............................................................ 323 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1508) ....................................................................................................... 323 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 324 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 324 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 324 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 324 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 324 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 324 

Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (sec. 1531) ..................... 324 

Page

XXIV 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS—Continued 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 324 

Tomahawk .................................................................................................. 324 

Ammunition less than $5 million ............................................................. 325 

JASSM–ER ................................................................................................ 325 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 325 

Cargo inspections to counter Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive 

Device (IED) threats .............................................................................. 325 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 327 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 327 

Modifications to Space Rapid Capabilities Office (sec. 1601) ................ 327 

Space warfighting policy and review of space capabilities (sec. 1602) .. 327 

Report on enhancements to the Global Positioning System Operational Control Segment (sec. 1603) ..................................................... 327 

Streamline of commercial space launch operations (sec. 1604) ............. 328 

Reusable launch vehicles (sec. 1605) ....................................................... 328 

Review of and report on activities of International Space Station 

(sec. 1606) ............................................................................................... 328 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities ......... 329 

Framework on governance, mission management, resourcing, and effective oversight of Department of Defense combat support agencies 

that are also elements of the intelligence community (sec. 1611) ..... 329 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace—Related Matters ..................................................... 329 

Part I—Cyberspace Generally .................................................................. 329 

Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, cyber 

warfare, and cyber deterrence (sec. 1621) .................................... 329 

Affirming the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

military activities and operations in cyberspace (sec. 1622) ....... 329 

Active defense and surveillance against Russian Federation attacks in cyberspace (sec. 1623) ...................................................... 330 

Reorganization and consolidation of certain cyber provisions (sec. 

1624) ................................................................................................ 331 

Designation of official for matters relating to integrating cybersecurity and industrial control systems within the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1625) ..................................................................... 332 

Assistance for small manufacturers in the defense industrial supply chain on matters relating to cybersecurity (sec. 1626) ......... 332 

Modification of acquisition authority of the Commander of United 

States Cyber Command (sec. 1627) ............................................... 333 

Email and Internet website security and authentication (sec. 

1628) ................................................................................................ 333 

Matters pertaining to the Sharkseer cybersecurity programs (sec. 

1629) ................................................................................................ 333 

Pilot program on modeling and simulation in support of military 

homeland defense operations in connection with cyber attacks 

on critical infrastructure (sec. 1630) ............................................. 334 

Security product integration framework (sec. 1631) ....................... 335 

Report on enhancement of software security for critical systems 

(sec. 1632) ........................................................................................ 336 

Comply to connect and cybersecurity scorecard (sec. 1633) ........... 337 

Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1634) ................................. 338 

Program to establish cyber institutes at institutions of higher 

learning (sec. 1635) ......................................................................... 339 

Establishment of Cybersecurity for Defense Industrial Base Manufacturing Activity (sec. 1636) ....................................................... 339 

Part II—Mitigation of Risks Posed by Providers of Information Technology with Obligations to Foreign Governments ............................... 339 

Definitions (sec. 1637) ........................................................................ 339 

Identification of countries of concern regarding cybersecurity 

(sec. 1638) ........................................................................................ 340 

Mitigation of risks to national security posed by providers of 

information technology products and services who have obligations to foreign governments (sec. 1639) ...................................... 340 

Establishment of registry of disclosures (sec. 1640) ........................ 340 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 341 

Page

XXV 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces—Continued 

Oversight and management of the command, control, and communications system for the national leadership of the United States 

(sec. 1641) ............................................................................................... 341 

Modification to requirement for conventional long-range standoff 

weapon (sec. 1642) ................................................................................. 341 

Exchange program for nuclear weapons program employees (sec. 

1643) ....................................................................................................... 341 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 

missile fuzes (sec. 1644) ........................................................................ 342 

Plan to train officers in nuclear command, control, and communications (sec. 1645) ...................................................................................... 342 

Plan for alignment of acquisition of warhead life extension programs 

and delivery vehicles for such warheads (sec. 1646) ........................... 343 

Extension of annual report on plan for the nuclear weapons stockpile, 

nuclear weapons complex, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and 

nuclear weapons command and control system (sec. 1647) ............... 343 

Prohibition on use of funds for activities to modify United States 

aircraft to implement Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1648) ......................... 344 

Sense of Senate on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1649) ........................ 344 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 344 

Extension of prohibition relating to missile defense information and 

systems (sec. 1651) ................................................................................ 344 

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-3 IB guided 

missiles (sec. 1652) ................................................................................ 344 

Extension of requirement for reports on unfunded priorities of Missile 

Defense Agency (sec. 1653) ................................................................... 345 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative 

missile defense program co-development and co-production (sec. 

1654) ....................................................................................................... 345 

Metrics for evaluating effectiveness of integrated Ballistic Missile 

Defense System against operationally realistic ballistic missile attacks (sec. 1655) ..................................................................................... 346 

Modification of requirement relating to transition of ballistic missile 

defense programs to military departments (sec. 1656) ....................... 347 

Sense of the Senate on acceleration of missile defense capabilities 

(sec. 1657) ............................................................................................... 347 

Integrated air and missile defense for evolving theater missile 

threats (sec. 1658) .................................................................................. 348 

Acceleration of hypersonic missile defense program (sec. 1659) ........... 348 

Sense of the Senate on allied partnerships for missile defense (sec. 

1660) ....................................................................................................... 348 

Sense of the Senate on results of tests carried out by Missile Defense 

Agency (sec. 1660A) ............................................................................... 348 

Sense of the Senate on discrimination for missile defense (sec. 

1660B) ..................................................................................................... 348 

Development and deployment of persistent space-based sensor architecture (sec. 1660C) ............................................................................... 349 

Modification of requirement to develop a space-based ballistic missile 

intercept layer (sec. 1660D) .................................................................. 349 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 349 

Assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of Russia and China 

(sec. 1661) ............................................................................................... 349 

Budget exhibit on support provided to entities outside Department 

of Defense (sec. 1662) ............................................................................ 349 

Development of Electromagnetic Battle Management capability for 

joint electromagnetic operations (sec. 1663) ........................................ 350 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 350 

Army Cyber Center of Excellence ............................................................ 350 

Wargaming and simulator systems ......................................................... 350 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent .......................................................... 351 

Space Rapid Capabilities Office ............................................................... 351 

Long Range Standoff Weapon .................................................................. 351 

Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared ..................................... 352 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System ..................................... 352 

Page

XXVI 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Hypersonic missile defense ....................................................................... 352 

Exploiting commercial technology for synthetic aperture radar imaging and automated exploitation ............................................................ 352 

United States Forces Korea Joint Emergent Operational Need ........... 353 

Midcourse ballistic missile defense .......................................................... 354 

Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications ...... 354 

Sea-based X-band Radar ........................................................................... 354 

Ballistic missile defense targets ............................................................... 355 

Boost phase intercept laser scaling .......................................................... 355 

Quartermaster Pathfinder ........................................................................ 355 

Improved homeland defense interceptors ................................................ 355 

Midcourse segment test for ballistic missile defense ............................. 356 

Missile Defense Tracking System ............................................................ 356 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 356 

Air Force nuclear acquisition programs .................................................. 356 

Airborne tracking and targeting system ................................................. 357 

Assessment of and plan for experimentation with Iron Dome for 

short-range air defense .......................................................................... 357 

Common Minuteman III maintenance vehicle ........................................ 358 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber classification .................................................................................................... 358 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber hygiene . 358 

Comptroller General review of geographic combatant command integration in nuclear planning and operations ........................................ 359 

Conventional Prompt Strike early limited operational capability ........ 360 

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology ................................. 360 

Cyber attacks by the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of 

China on Department of Defense affiliates ......................................... 361 

Defense options for Guam ........................................................................ 361 

Department of Defense efforts to cooperate with Department of 

Homeland Security Fusion Centers ..................................................... 361 

Digital High Frequency Global Communications System ...................... 362 

Diversified access to space with Federal Aviation Administrationlicensed spaceports ................................................................................ 362 

Early Warning Radar upgrades ............................................................... 364 

Importance of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to United States 

strategic deterrence ............................................................................... 365 

Laser communications .............................................................................. 365 

Launch vehicle reusability ........................................................................ 365 

Layered ballistic missile defense .............................................................. 366 

Live fire training on missiles nearing demilitarization ......................... 366 

Long-term plan for weapons storage facilities ........................................ 366 

Mapping of Department of Defense base stations .................................. 367 

Matters related to Department of Defense cyber ranges ....................... 367 

Microsegmentation .................................................................................... 368 

Modular array for the direct distribution of integrated energy on 

small satellites ....................................................................................... 369 

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Program Executive 

Office staffing ......................................................................................... 369 

On-orbit satellite servicing technology .................................................... 369 

Portable satellite data receiver suites for deployed warfighters ........... 370 

Review of connected devices on military installations ........................... 370 

Space Rapid Capabilities Office ............................................................... 370 

Transition of the Strategic Automatic Control and Communications 

System to the Navy Nova Communications System ........................... 371 

United States-North Korea nuclear and missile threat reduction ........ 371 

TITLE XVII—COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED 

STATES ................................................................................................................ 373 

Short title (sec. 1701) ................................................................................ 373 

Sense of Congress (sec. 1702) ................................................................... 373 

Definitions (sec. 1703) ............................................................................... 373 

Acceptance of written notices (sec. 1704) ................................................ 373 

Inclusion of partnership and side agreements in notice (sec. 1705) ..... 374 

Declarations for certain covered transactions (sec. 1706) ...................... 374 

Page

XXVII 

TITLE XVII—COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED 

STATES—Continued 

Stipulations regarding transactions (sec. 1707) ...................................... 374 

Authority for unilateral initiation of reviews (sec. 1708) ....................... 374 

Timing for reviews and investigations (sec. 1709) .................................. 374 

Monitoring of non-notified and non-declared transactions (sec. 1710) . 374 

Submission of certifications to Congress (sec. 1711) .............................. 375 

Analysis by Director of National Intelligence (sec. 1712) ...................... 375 

Information sharing (sec. 1713) ............................................................... 375 

Action by the President (sec. 1714) .......................................................... 375 

Judicial review (sec. 1715) ........................................................................ 375 

Membership and staff of Committee (sec. 1716) ..................................... 375 

Actions by the Committee to address national security risks (sec. 

1717) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Modification of annual report and other reporting requirements (sec. 

1718) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Certification of notices and information (sec. 1719) ............................... 376 

Implementation plans (sec. 1720) ............................................................ 376 

Assessment of need for additional resources for Committee (sec. 

1721) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Funding (sec. 1722) ................................................................................... 376 

Centralization of certain Committee functions (sec. 1723) .................... 377 

Conforming amendments (sec. 1724) ....................................................... 377 

Requirements to identify and control the export of emerging and 

foundational technologies (sec. 1725) ................................................... 377 

Export control enforcement authority (sec. 1726) ................................... 377 

Prohibition on modification of civil penalties under export control 

and sanctions laws (sec. 1727) .............................................................. 377 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security (sec. 1728) ... 377 

Limitation on cancellation of designation of Secretary of the Air 

Force as Department of Defense Executive Agent for a certain 

Defense Production Act program (sec. 1729) ....................................... 378 

Review of and report on certain defense technologies critical to the 

United States maintaining superior military capabilities (sec. 

1730) ....................................................................................................... 378 

Briefing on information from transactions reviewed by Committee 

on Foreign Investment in the United States relating to foreign 

efforts to influence democratic institutions and processes (sec. 

1731) ....................................................................................................... 378 

Effective date (sec. 1732) .......................................................................... 378 

Severability (sec. 1733) ............................................................................. 378 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 379 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 379 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 379 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 379 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 379 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 381 

Summary .................................................................................................... 381 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 381 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 381 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 381 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2104) ....................................................................................................... 381 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2016 project (sec. 

2105) ....................................................................................................... 382 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 383 

Summary .................................................................................................... 383 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 383 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 383 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 383 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 383 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 385 

Summary .................................................................................................... 385 

Page

XXVIII 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 385 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 385 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 385 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 385 

Modification of authority to carry out certain phased project authorized in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 (sec. 2305) ......................... 386 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 project 

(sec. 2306) ............................................................................................... 386 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 project 

(sec. 2307) ............................................................................................... 386 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 projects 

(sec. 2308) ............................................................................................... 386 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 387 

Summary .................................................................................................... 387 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 387 

Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (sec. 2402) . 387 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403) .............. 387 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2404) ....................................................................................................... 387 

Authorization of certain fiscal year 2018 project (sec. 2405) ................. 388 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS .................................................... 389 

Summary .................................................................................................... 389 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................... 389 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 389 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 389 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions ......................................... 389 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) ................... 389 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 391 

Summary .................................................................................................... 391 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 391 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 391 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 391 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 391 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 391 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 392 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 392 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 392 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project 

(sec. 2611) ............................................................................................... 392 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 project 

(sec. 2612) ............................................................................................... 392 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 project 

(sec. 2613) ............................................................................................... 392 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 393 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 393 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 393 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ...................................................................... 393 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 393 

Aligning base realignment and closure goals with infrastructure ........ 393 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................... 395 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 395 

Page

XXIX 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes—Continued 

Additional authority to obtain architectural and engineering services 

and construction design for defense laboratory modernization pilot 

program (sec. 2801) ................................................................................ 395 

Modification of contract authority for acquisition, construction, or 

furnishing of test facilities and equipment (sec. 2802) ....................... 395 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2803) ................................................................ 396 

Unspecified minor military construction projects related to revitalization and recapitalization of Defense Industrial Base Facilities (sec. 

2804) ....................................................................................................... 396 

Congressional oversight of projects carried out pursuant to laws other 

than Military Construction Authorization Acts (sec. 2805) ............... 396 

Subtitle B—Project Management and Oversight Reforms ............................ 396 

Updates and modifications to Department of Defense Form 1391, 

Unified Facilities Criteria, and military installation master plans 

(sec. 2811) ............................................................................................... 396 

Work in Process Curve charts and outlay tables for military construction projects (sec. 2812) ......................................................................... 397 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 397 

Land exchange, Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona (sec. 2821) ......... 397 

Land conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (sec. 2822) ................. 397 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 397 

Commemoration of Freedman’s Village (sec. 2831) ................................ 397 

Strategic plan to improve capability of Department of Defense training ranges and installations (sec. 2832) ............................................... 397 

Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation program 

(sec. 2833) ............................................................................................... 397 

Defense community infrastructure pilot program (sec. 2834) ............... 398 

Representation of installation interests in negotiations and proceedings with carriers and other public utilities (sec. 2835) .............. 398 

White Sands Missile Range land enhancements (sec. 2836) ................. 398 

Authority to transfer funds for construction of Indian River Bridge 

(sec. 2837) ............................................................................................... 398 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 398 

Assessment of military structures in permafrost areas ......................... 398 

Encouraging the use of existing authorities for construction of future 

National Guard Readiness Center ....................................................... 399 

Excess capacity estimates ......................................................................... 399 

Federal land transfer for South Carolina National Guard .................... 400 

Incremental funding of military construction projects ........................... 400 

Installation and facilities physical security gaps .................................... 401 

National Maritime Intelligence Center Parking ..................................... 401 

Process for prioritizing funding and identifying facilities for demolition .......................................................................................................... 402 

Review of Army Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization .......... 402 

Standoff weapons facility project at Andersen Air Force Base ............. 403 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 405 

Summary .................................................................................................... 405 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 405 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 405 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2903) ....................................................................................................... 405 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2904) ................................................................................. 405 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2905) ............................................ 405 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 407 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 407 

Page

XXX 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS—Continued 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 407 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 407 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 407 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 407 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) ........................................................................ 407 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations .............. 407 

Clarification of roles and authorities of National Nuclear Security 

Administration (sec. 3111) .................................................................... 407 

National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System (sec. 

3112) ....................................................................................................... 409 

Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (sec. 3113) .................. 409 

Extension of enhanced procurement authority to manage supply 

chain risk (sec. 3114) ............................................................................. 410 

Pilot program on conduct by Department of Energy of background 

reviews for access by certain individuals to national security laboratories (sec. 3115) ............................................................................... 410 

Extension of authority for acceptance of contributions for acceleration 

of removal or security of fissile materials, radiological materials, 

and related equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide (sec. 3116) ..... 410 

Modification of limitation on development of low-yield nuclear weapons (sec. 3117) ........................................................................................ 411 

Prohibition on use of funds for terminating activities at MOX facility 

(sec. 3118) ............................................................................................... 411 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports ........................................................................ 411 

Modifications to cost-benefit analyses for competition of management 

and operating contracts (sec. 3121) ...................................................... 411 

Review of defense environmental cleanup activities (sec. 3122) ........... 412 

Survey of workforce of national security laboratories and nuclear 

weapons production facilities (sec. 3123) ............................................. 412 

Elimination of certain reports (sec. 3124) ............................................... 412 

Implementation of Nuclear Posture Review by National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3125) ......................................................... 412 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 412 

W76–2 ......................................................................................................... 412 

Defense nuclear waste disposal ................................................................ 413 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 413 

Comptroller General review of domestic uranium industrial base ....... 413 

Comptroller General review of Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 414 

Comptroller General review of strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics ............................................................................................... 414 

Independent review of Engineering Assessment of plutonium pit production .................................................................................................... 415 

Nuclear smuggling detection in Iraq ....................................................... 416 

Repackaging of Transuranic Waste Drums at the Idaho National 

Laboratory .............................................................................................. 416 

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration regulation ......... 416 

Roadmap for National Nuclear Security Administration production 

capability improvements ....................................................................... 417 

Status of Russian nuclear security upgrades .......................................... 418 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 419 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 419 

Title XXXV—Maritime Administration ................................................................. 421 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 421 

Permanent authority of Secretary of Transportation to issue vessel 

war risk insurance (sec. 3502) .............................................................. 421 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 423 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 423 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 435 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 436 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 478 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 491 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 492 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 533 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 537 

Page

XXXI 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 538 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 556 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 567 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 568 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 569 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 571 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 572 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 576 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 579 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 580 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4602) . 600 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 603 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701) ............. 604 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 616 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 616 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 616 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 620 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 620 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 620 

Calendar No. 439 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–262 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION, TO MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 5, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2987] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2019 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, 

and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) Authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2019; 

(2) Authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2019; 

(3) Authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2019; 

(4) Impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) Impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) Authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2019; and 

2 

(7) Authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2019. 

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW 

One of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities is 

providing for the common defense. To fulfill this fundamental duty, 

Congress has for the last 57 consecutive years passed the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes funding and 

provides authorities for the U.S. military. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted overwhelmingly, 25–2, to advance this important legislation to the Senate floor. 

The committee takes seriously its obligation to our men and 

women in uniform and their families. Their service represents the 

best of our country, and this committee and the Congress honor 

their sacrifice. 

The committee markup of the NDAA, which is this year named 

the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2019, supports a total of $716 billion for national defense. The 

committee believes this authorization is necessary to help the U.S. 

military implement the National Defense Strategy (NDS) as it restores readiness, rebuilds capacity, and modernizes the force. 

The committee markup: • Authorizes critical funding for the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to rebuild a ready and capable force by increasing maritime capacity, procuring combat aircraft and munitions, increasing operation and maintenance funding, and aligning end 

strength to NDS requirements. • Ensures the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force 

by improving the quality of life of the men and women of the 

total force (Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves), their 

families, and the civilians and contractors who support our 

Armed Forces through fair pay and policies, including reform 

of the officer personnel management system. • Continues oversight and reform of the acquisition system 

to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to succeed in future contested environments 

and drives innovation by allocating funds for advanced technology development and next-generation capabilities to ensure 

America’s military dominance. • Reforms the DOD to effectively confront the challenges 

outlined in the NDS and emerging threats in the information 

domain. 

• Advances our ability to protect our allies, partners, and 

friends. 

• Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces along 

with the security forces of allied and partner nations to combat 

ISIS, Al-Qaida, and other violent extremist organizations while 

ensuring there is a strategy for success. 

• Supports implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review 

through modernization of our nuclear deterrent and reforms to 

ensure the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, delivery systems, and infrastructure. 

• Terminates troubled and redundant programs and activities, identifies efficiencies, and reduces unnecessary defense expenditures not in line with the NDS. 

3 

• Promotes aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations and proper stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars. 

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

The array of national security threats facing the United States 

is more complex and diverse than at any time since World War II. 

The strategic environment has not been this competitive since the 

Cold War. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the comparative 

edge it once had over its competitors and adversaries. 

To remain successful, America must maintain its military advantage, counter potential adversaries, and defend the international 

order that has protected and advanced the security, prosperity, and 

liberty of U.S. citizens and our allies and partners. This requires 

a strategic framework that establishes clear priorities and helps 

make tough choices. 

Believing that the strategy development process in the Department of Defense (DOD) needed to be reinvigorated, the Congress 

acted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) to replace the legislative mandate for 

the Quadrennial Defense Review with the framework for a more focused and flexible National Defense Strategy (NDS). The legislation included a clearly defined set of expectations for what the 

strategy should address, including the current and anticipated strategic environment, prioritization among threats and missions, the 

roles and missions of the Armed Forces, force planning constructs 

and scenarios, force posture and readiness, and anticipated major 

investments required to execute the strategy. The desire to facilitate a more strategic approach to national defense also contributed 

to the Congress’ willingness to forge a bipartisan budget agreement 

that increased defense and non-defense spending and provided a 

modicum of fiscal predictability through the end of next year. 

The committee applauds Secretary of Defense James Mattis and 

the senior leadership of the Department for their efforts in crafting 

the National Defense Strategy that was delivered to the Congress 

earlier this year. The document prioritizes the challenges our nation faces and points toward potentially significant changes to reshape the joint force and business of the DOD. At the same time, 

much of the hardest work remains to translate the NDS into detailed policy guidance to realign defense programs, readiness, and 

posture in accordance with the strategy. This responsibility rests 

equally with the executive and legislative branches. 

The committee is doing its part to meet its responsibilities 

through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2019. Informed by the strategy, as well as the administration’s fiscal year 2019 budget request, the NDAA aligns investments, requirements, structures, policies, and authorizations with 

the new strategic orientation articulated in the NDS. 

The NDAA supports the latest budget agreement of $715.9 billion in fiscal year 2019 for national defense. It authorizes a base 

defense budget of $639.2 billion for the Department of Defense and 

the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The 

focus of this funding will be building a joint force that is ready, 

4 

equipped, and capable of maintaining military overmatch against 

potential adversaries. The NDAA also authorizes $68.5 billion for 

Overseas Contingency Operations. 

While the recent 2-year budget deal is a helpful step in the right 

direction, a higher funding topline alone will not sufficiently address the challenges we face. Even with adequate resources, we 

must make difficult choices about roles and missions, force development, resource allocation, and investment priorities. 

To that end, the National Defense Authorization Act advances 

four primary themes: 

(1) First, the NDAA adjusts the budget request to align resources 

in a manner consistent with the priorities and principles of the 

NDS. After years of warning from senior defense leaders, the NDS 

addresses the degrading state of U.S. military capabilities vis-a`-vis 

potential competitors. While there are many contributing factors— 

unstable budgets, sustained high operational tempo, as well as adversaries’ increased investments in military capabilities—the committee believes that reversing this trend should be a high priority 

for the Department. To encourage these efforts, the NDAA recommends re-prioritizing funds for each of the Services toward requirements that directly support the NDS. 

For example, the NDAA makes significant investments in research and development (R&D) to re-establish a credible combat 

advantage. The legislation increases R&D spending by $1.2 billion, 

the majority of which is for science and technology spending with 

an emphasis on high priority emerging technologies like 

hypersonics, artificial intelligence, space, cyber, and directed energy. The NDAA boosts funding for promising new technologies and 

concepts such as distributed, low-cost, autonomous, and attritable 

systems in every domain—on land, in the air, on and under the 

sea, and in space and cyberspace. The NDAA also accelerates programs that enable operations in contested environments against 

peer competitors, among other NDS priorities, including accelerating the delivery of fixed-site cruise missile defense, increasing 

procurement of advanced munitions, and providing additional 

money for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Virginia-class submarines. 

(2) Second, the NDAA provides one overarching reporting requirement to the Secretary of Defense: a list of detailed and specific 

questions regarding the roles, missions, and requirements of the 

military Services that the committee believes are raised by the 

NDS. The NDAA requires the Secretary to re-evaluate the highest 

priority missions for the DOD, the roles of the joint force in the 

performance of these missions, and the capabilities required to 

complete these missions. More specifically, the committee wants 

the Secretary to update the roles and missions of the military Services and to reassess how the NDS impacts end strength requirements, how the military will conduct the counterterrorism mission 

at a more sustainable cost to military readiness and resources, and 

how the focus on competing against peer adversaries and operating 

in contested environments impacts capability requirements and investments throughout the joint force. The committee believes that 

serious answers to these and other strategic questions will improve 

the Congress’s ability to perform oversight of the DOD’s future program and budget requests. 

5 

(3) Third, the NDAA includes reforms to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to support effective implementation of the NDS. 

The committee believes organizational change will be key to addressing systemic problems and positioning the Department to confront the challenges outlined in the NDS. 

The ultimate success of the NDS will depend on implementation 

guided by strong civilian leadership determined to make the difficult choices required to align policies, authorities, organizations, 

requirements, and investments and informed by a realistic assessment of available resources. To help answer some of these big questions, the NDAA creates a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans, Assessments, Readiness, and Capabilities. By combining these strategically-oriented tasks in one office, the committee seeks to align the critical functions necessary to exert strong 

civilian leadership in the development of defense strategy and its 

translation into detailed policy to guide investments in necessary 

capabilities, readiness, and posture for the future joint force. The 

NDAA would re-designate the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and clarify its role as the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer. 

The NDAA also furthers the reform of the Department’s strategy 

development process that began with the statutory requirement for 

the NDS. It clarifies the three strategic guidance documents that 

support and implement the NDS (the Defense Planning Guidance, 

the Contingency Planning Guidance or Guidance for the Employment of the Force, and the Global Defense Posture Report), describes the elements to be included in each document, and requires 

the Secretary of Defense to submit each document to Congress. 

These documents set forth the Secretary’s policy guidance as to 

what the Department should buy for the joint force, how the joint 

force is to be used, and where the joint force is to be postured 

around the world in order to execute the NDS. Receiving this strategic guidance is essential to congressional oversight efforts. 

(4) Finally, the NDAA modernizes officer personnel management 

to bolster the effectiveness, recruitment, and retention of the allvolunteer force. The NDS acknowledges that the current joint force 

must change to meet the threat of renewed great power competition, calling for a ‘‘broad revision’’ of talent management principles 

among the Services to increase the lethality and adaptability of the 

force. The 38-year-old Defense Officer Personnel Management Act 

(Public Law 96–513) requires all military Services to manage their 

officer corps in the same general manner within specific constraints. By reforming this system, the NDAA will provide for flexibility in the careers of commissioned officers and better serve the 

demands of the modern force. 

After the end of the Cold War, the United States enjoyed a robust comparative military advantage over other nations. However, 

through significant investment and military modernization, nearpeer competitors eventually eroded America’s military superiority. 

Meanwhile, decisions and policies we pursued—and those we did 

not—had consequences for our military: commitment to persistent 

counterterrorism operations, inadequate funding and budget uncertainty, and misplaced priorities and acquisition failures. Now, RusVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
6 

sia and China present significant military challenges and could 

credibly threaten the security and prosperity of our country. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 will 

help the United States change course. It will recalibrate and 

refocus our efforts on readiness restoration, capabilities modernization, and concept development—all aimed at reasserting a quantitative and qualitative military advantage over potential adversaries. The recent National Defense Strategy provides a framework 

to address these challenges, and the NDAA builds on the changes 

outlined in the NDS while providing the DOD with the resources 

and authorities it needs to play its part in the national effort to restore American power in the new era of competition. 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2019 was $707.9 billion. Of this 

amount, $617.1 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $21.8 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE), and $69.0 billion was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $707.9 billion in fiscal year 2019, including $617.6 billion for 

base DOD programs, $21.7 billion for national security programs in 

the DOE, and $68.5 billion for OCO. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2019 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2019 and 

compares these amounts to the request. 

The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by including national defense funding for 

items that are not in the jurisdiction of the defense committees or 

are already authorized. 

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 

(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 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Army to consider alternate short-term options to fill its cruise missile defense gap with existing systems and accelerate the Indirect 

Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) system independently of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) deployment, leveraging entities such as the Defense Digital Service or 

the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental and report the determination of that short-term option to the congressional defense 

committees no later than 90 days after the enactment of this act. 

The committee recognizes the Army’s commitment to missile defense, as shown through the recently employed cross-functional 

team dedicated to missile defense, and commends the Army’s dedication to the mission, as demonstrated through the increased funding allocation to the Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense program 

in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. However, the committee is 

deeply concerned about the paucity of land-based cruise missile defense capabilities and the Army’s corresponding inability to adequately protect the joint force’s fixed site systems, such as airfields 

and logistical depots. Integrated air and missile defense is critical 

for joint operations, but assets are not currently ready to counter 

an adversary’s potential complex, integrated attack, thus leaving 

critical assets vulnerable. Furthermore, current air and missile defense forces fall dangerously short of being an effective and 

foundational defense for the kind of conflict outlined by the National Defense Strategy. While adversary air and missile threats 

become more capable, more complex, more powerful, and more numerous, U.S. air and missile defense capabilities have regressed. 

Specifically, the IBCS and IFPC systems have struggled to make 

real progress in a reasonable amount of time. 

The IFPC system has experienced significant delays while employing a risky acquisition strategy. By attempting to leverage the 

8 

IBCS system for IFPC, the Army exposes itself to additional delays 

if certain testing milestones are not achieved on time. Furthermore, the IBCS system is already delayed 7 years and has expended about $1.0 billion to date. The committee is not confident 

that the Army will successfully deliver an IBCS system on its current timeline due to the previous and recurring schedule delays. 

Any further delays will jeopardize timelines for delivery of integrated capabilities. Furthermore, the Government Accountability 

Office has stated that the IFPC Increment 2–1 Block 1 Program 

has struggled with integration of all four components—the Sentinel 

radar, the AIM–9X interceptor, the IBCS fire control, and the 

multi-mission launcher. While the committee appreciates the 

Army’s dedication to innovation within the IBCS framework, the 

Army is overextended in its IBCS effort and is therefore slowing 

the development and deployment of IFPC. 

As outlined by the National Defense Strategy, cruise missile defense is a critical capability to defend against Russian and Chinese 

threats. Without this capability, the committee is concerned the 

U.S. Army will fail to successfully perform its mission to protect 

the joint force. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear procurement for F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft for up to 3 years. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would provide to the 

Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear procurement for E–2D aircraft for up to 5 years. 

Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding 

contracts for certain vessels (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to include fiscal year 2019 the prohibition on funds from being used to 

enter into, or prepare to enter into, sole source contracts for one or 

more Joint High Speed Vessels or Expeditionary Fast Transports 

(EPFs), unless the Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional defense committees a certification and a report. 

The committee notes that since 2011 the Navy requirement for 

EPFs has been 10 ships, which was most recently validated in December 2016. In 2013, this requirement was met with the procurement of the 10th EPF, and the Navy planned to shut down the production line. 

Without an authorization or request in the President’s Budget, 

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–235) included procurement of an 11th EPF at a 

cost of $200.0 million. Two more EPFs, the 12th and 13th, were 

added at a cost of $225.0 million each in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 

9 

113) and Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–141) respectively, without an authorization 

or request in the President’s Budget. The fiscal year 2015 and 2016 

EPFs were awarded to a single shipbuilder, with no competition, 

using a sole source contract. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds from being used to procure new Navy port waterborne security barriers unless the Secretary of the Navy submits a waiver to 

the congressional defense committees. 

The committee notes that the former Commander of Navy Installations Command, Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, testified before the 

committee on April 5, 2016, that current Navy maritime security 

barriers do ‘‘not meet the requirement for high-speed boats that 

could be used for a terrorist attack.’’ 

Furthermore, the committee is aware of significant performance 

shortfalls of the current maritime security barriers that continue to 

result in unacceptable anti-terrorism and force protection gaps in 

at least one location. 

The committee understands that the Navy is testing other Navy 

port waterborne security barriers, and Admiral Smith testified that 

these barriers will better be able to stop vessels. The committee 

further understands that these barriers may provide improved protection against low profile surface threats, capacity to withstand 

multiple coordinated attacks, and ability to endure environmental 

extremes. 

The committee also notes that in a May 2016 report to the Congress, the Navy concluded that a commercial-off-the-shelf maritime 

security barrier ‘‘has the potential to provide greater operational 

capability compared to the current port security barriers against 

current and projected threats.’’ A business case analysis described 

in this report showed a significant decrease in sustainment costs 

for a new commercially available system. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy has not set requirements, requested funding, or released a request for proposals to 

procure new Navy port waterborne security barriers. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Navy to expeditiously set requirements, request funding, and release a request for proposals 

with full and open competition for new Navy port waterborne security barriers. 

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile-6 

(sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts beginning in 

fiscal year 2019 for the procurement of 625 Standard Missile-6 

guided missiles pending the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation confirmation of the Secretary of the Navy’s preliminary findings as required in subsection a of section 2306b of 

title 10, United States Code. 

10 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral Combat 

Ship (sec. 126) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds from being used to exceed the total procurement quantity 

listed in revision five of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) acquisition 

strategy unless the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment submits to the congressional defense committees a 

certification. 

The committee notes the Navy force structure assessment requirement and LCS acquisition strategy total procurement quantity 

of 32 LCS was met in fiscal year 2018. The committee further notes 

that in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the 

Senate on April 17, 2018, the joint statement of the Deputy Chief 

of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems and Assistant Secretary 

of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition stated, 

‘‘The [budget request] includes one LCS in [fiscal year] 2019 to sustain the viability of the industrial base until the FFG(X) award in 

[fiscal year] 2020.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee believes that before further LCS procurement, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment should certify that such procurement: (1) Is in the national security interests of the United States; (2) Will not result in 

exceeding the low rate initial production quantity approved in the 

LCS acquisition strategy in effect at the time of the certification; 

and (3) Is necessary to maintain a full and open competition for the 

guided missile frigate (FFG(X)) with a single source award in fiscal 

year 2020. 

Nuclear refueling of aircraft carriers (sec. 127) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

procurement of naval nuclear reactor power units and associated 

reactor components for the nuclear refueling of the following aircraft carriers: USS John C. Stennis (CVN–74), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN–75), USS Ronald Reagan (CVN–76), and USS George 

H.W. Bush (CVN–77). 

The committee notes that the procurement lead time for some 

nuclear components required to conduct a nuclear refueling precedes the authorization for the associated aircraft carrier refueling 

by several years. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 7314a of title 10, United States 

Code, as added by section 1014 of this Act, in order to maintain appropriate oversight of program execution of the nuclear refueling of 

aircraft carriers, the committee recommends the authorizations 

contained in this provision. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would limit twentyfive percent of funds authorized for Amphibious Assault Vehicles 

product improvement program (AAV PIP) from being obligated or 

expended until the Secretary of Defense provides the required report identified in the section titled Report on the Highest-priority 

roles and missions of the Department of Defense and the Armed 

Forces. 

11 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of E–8 

JSTARS aircraft (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

availability of funds to retire, or prepare to retire, any E–8 Joint 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. 

As part of its fiscal year 2019 budget request, the Air Force is 

seeking to cancel the JSTARS recapitalization program and retire 

three existing JSTARS aircraft. The Air Force’s rational is that 

current assessments demonstrate a recapitalized JSTARS aircraft 

will not be survivable in a highly contested environment during 

conflict. In its place, the Air Force is seeking to invest in a portfolio 

of new ideas and emerging capabilities to fulfill the Ground Moving 

Target Indicator (GMTI) mission. 

The committee agrees with the National Defense Strategy on the 

need to focus on peer adversaries and is supportive of the Air 

Force’s efforts to move to an Advanced Battle Management System. 

However, the committee is concerned with the Air Force’s plan to 

divest current capability before its replacement technology is developed and operational. While the Air Force’s plan for 2030 and beyond is aspirational with no guarantee of success, it is willing to 

make decisive, irreversible decisions about the retirement of current capabilities. The committee is concerned that this dynamic 

creates the potential, if not the likelihood, of extended capability 

gaps should the Air Force’s ambitious plan not meet reality, either 

in time or feasibility. 

The committee believes the Air Force must ensure a robust capability to execute the GMTI and airborne battle management missions throughout the transition to its planned Advance Battle Management System. 

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

The committee recommends a provision requiring a long-term 

modernization plan for the B–52H aircraft due 180 days after the 

enactment of this Act. 

The Air Force has stated it intends to keep the B–52H flying 

through 2040, at which time the newest aircraft, having left the assembly line in 1962, will be 78 years old. The committee recognizes 

the value of the B–52 and is supportive of the Department of Defense’s efforts to continue to employ its unique capabilities for the 

foreseeable future. 

However, the committee is cognizant that, given the age of the 

B–52, any modernization effort must consider the whole system. 

For example, because the radar is integrated into the electronic 

warfare system, the radar cannot simply be modernized without 

taking into account the characteristics of the future electronic warfare system. The committee believes it is imperative that the Air 

Force take a holistic approach to the modernization of the B–52 to 

ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. 

12 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal Section 131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328; 13 Stat. 2037) and require the Secretary of the Air Force to provide periodic reports to the congressional defense committees on the status of the EC–130H Compass 

Call recapitalization program. 

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

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

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear procurement for C–130J aircraft for up to 5 years. 

Quarterly updates on the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program 

(sec. 152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to 

provide the congressional defense committees quarterly updates on 

the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. 

The committee notes the F–35 program is facing an inflection 

point in its lifecycle. The committee is encouraged that the program 

is at long last on the cusp of completing the System Development 

and Demonstration (SDD) phase but continues to have a number 

of concerns. The sustainment, modification, and modernization of 

the F–35s will be a continuous challenge for the Department of Defense (DOD) for decades to come. The committee believes if the 

right foundation is not established today, prior to a steep ramp in 

production, the viability of the program will be put into doubt, depriving our warfighters of urgently-needed capabilities necessary to 

deter and, if necessary, defeat any adversary. 

The F–35 sustainment enterprise is struggling to provide the Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps an affordable strategy that meets 

their operational needs. As the number of fielded aircraft nearly 

triples in the next 3 years, the challenge will grow exponentially. 

The committee is particularly concerned by the Not Mission Capable-Supply (NMC–S) rates of the F–35. In part, the high NMC–S 

rates are due to a lack of adequate repair capacity. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on October 26, 

2017, titled ‘‘F–35 Aircraft Sustainment: DoD Needs to Address 

Challenges Affecting Readiness and Cost Transparency’’ (GAO–18– 

75), that stated the DOD ‘‘does not have enough capacity to repair 

F–35 aircraft parts because the establishment of repair capabilities 

at the military depots is 6 years behind schedule.’’ The report goes 

on to say, ‘‘Program officials in part attributed these delays to the 

military services not providing enough funding for depot requirements; however, service officials told [the GAO] the program office 

did not clearly identify some depot requirements in a timely manner necessary for the services to fund those requirements.’’ 

13 

The GAO cited five key challenges facing the Department: (1) 

Limited repair capacity at depots; (2) Spare parts shortages; (3) 

Undefined technical data needs; (4) Unfunded intermediate-level 

maintenance capabilities; and (5) Delays in the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) development and uncertain funding. 

While production of aircraft has begun to rapidly increase, development of the baseline Block 3F configuration has continued. There 

are over 250 aircraft now delivered and fielded, despite the fact 

that Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) will not even 

begin until the fall of 2018. The committee notes the continued 

costs associated with the concurrency of development and production. In June 2017, the Joint Program Office (JPO) estimated the 

cost to upgrade the fielded fleet of 266 aircraft to the Block 3F System Development and Demonstration standard at $1.6 billion. In 

January 2018, the JPO estimated the cost to upgrade the older Lot 

2–8 aircraft to Block 4 will be approximately $16.0 million per aircraft and the newer Lot 9–10 aircraft will be approximately $13.0 

million. 

The committee is concerned by the enormous retrofit costs required to provide the warfighters the capabilities they need from 

the F–35. The committee supports upgrading as many F–35s as 

possible to the most advanced configuration in order to, most importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter but also to 

reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining multiple 

configurations of three different aircraft. Elsewhere in this bill, the 

committee provides additional funding for the modifications of F– 

35 aircraft. However, the committee is concerned the modification 

costs and lack of industrial capacity for parts will limit the Department’s ability to achieve a rationalized and maximally capable F– 

35 fleet. 

Despite the clear and obvious issues, the committee is not convinced the program office or Services are adequately addressing the 

problems, including providing adequate funding for spare parts and 

to stand up depot component repair capabilities and purchase the 

necessary lay-in material, both of which are years behind schedule. 

The committee urges the Services to urgently prioritize funding 

spare parts and depot repair capability. Elsewhere in this legislation, the committee recommends funding increases to accelerate 

procurement of spare parts and the establishment of depot component repair capability. 

At the same time, the sustainment enterprise is struggling to 

keep up with the number of fielded aircraft and modification costs 

continue to rise, the JPO is about to embark on the Block 4 modernization program, known as Continuous Capability Development 

and Delivery (C2D2). An enormously expensive and complicated effort in its own right, C2D2 seeks to rapidly field advanced capabilities to the warfighter under an agile software development construct. While supportive of moving to a more agile and rapid capability fielding cycle, the committee remains concerned with the ability of the Department to execute in an affordable and efficient 

manner on a program as large and complicated as the F–35. 

The committee has been encouraged by the renewed commitment 

to transparency and communication with the Congress and looks 

14 

forward to continuing to work together to ensure the success of the 

F–35 program. In order to facilitate this collaboration, the committee believes it prudent for the Congress to be regularly updated 

on the status and direction of this vital program. 

Authority to procure additional polar-class icebreakers (sec. 

153) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) by striking subsections (a) and (b), as 

well as providing authority to enter into a contract or contracts for 

up to six polar-class icebreakers. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Interim cruise missile defense capability for the Army 

The budget request for the Army included $145.6 million in line 

number 3 of Missile Procurement, Army (MPA), for the Indirect 

Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2-Intercept weapon 

system. 

The committee believes this is insufficient to deliver the critical 

need for cruise missile defenses of fixed assets and to ensure any 

delays that emanate from the IFPC weapon system or the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $500.0 million in line number 3 of MPA for procurement of an interim cruise 

missile defense capability for the Army, which equates to about two 

batteries for such a capability. 

Army Tactical Missile System 

The budget request included $221.7 million in line number 16 in 

Missile Procurement, Army (MPA), for Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) modifications. 

The total request is for 402 ATACMS; however, the maximum capacity for ATACMS is 320. 

Therefore, committee recommends a decrease of $80.0 million in 

line number 16 in MPA to align total quantity to 320. 

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle 

The budget request included of $480.0 million in line number 2 

of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV) for the 

procurement of 131 Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles (AMPV). 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and to be better prepared to execute the National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities needed for combined 

arms maneuver against a peer adversary. The committee understands that the AMPV program continues to work through performance challenges of key components. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in line number 2 W&TCV for the procurement of the AMPV. 

15 

Stryker modification 

The budget request included $287.5 million in line number 4 of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for Stryker 

modifications. 

The Army has requested a transfer of $149.4 from line number 

4 to line number 5 of WTCV for Stryker upgrades. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $149.4 million in line number 4 of WTCV. 

Stryker upgrade 

The budget request included $21.9 million in line number 5 of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for Stryker 

upgrades. The Army has requested a transfer of $149.4 from line number 

4 to line number 5 of WTCV for Stryker upgrades. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $149.4 million in line number 5 of WTCV. 

Bradley Program (Modifications) 

The budget request included $625.0 million in line number 6 of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV), for the 

procurement of Bradley fighting vehicles. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and to be better prepared to execute the National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities needed for combined 

arms maneuver against a peer adversary. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $324.0 million in line number 6 W&TCV for the procurement of the Bradley. 

Paladin Integrated Management 

The budget request included $351.8 million in line number 8 of 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for the procurement of 30 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) sets. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and to be better prepared to execute the National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities needed for combined 

arms maneuver against a peer adversary. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $110.0 

million in line number 8 WTCV for the procurement of the PIM. 

Small caliber reduction 

The budget request included $2.2 billion for Procurement of Am- munition, Army (PAA), of which $41.8 million was for LI 

0132E00700, CTG 5.56 mm. The committee notes the increase in 

the appropriations omnibus for fiscal year 18 and therefore a decrease of $6.7 million in PAA 0132E00700 due to forward financing. 

Army ammunition reduction 

The budget request included $2.2 billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $184.0 million was for LI 

8750E27501, Artillery, Fuze, Precision Guidance Kit (PGK). 

16 

The committee is very supportive of the PGK program, its combat performance to date, and the Army’s goal to stockpile PGK 

rounds to reach its total Army munitions requirements. However, 

given the Army’s plans to replace current PGK rounds with antijam capable PGK rounds in the near future and the requested 

three-fold increase compared to fiscal year 2018, the requested 

funding increase in fiscal year 2019 could be better aligned for 

other readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in PAA to LI 8750E27501 for PGK. 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

The budget request included $1.32 billion in line number 6 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 3,390 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and to be better prepared to execute the National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities needed for combined 

arms maneuver against a peer adversary. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $250.0 million in line number 6 OPA for the procurement of the JLTV. 

U.S. Southern Command unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $8.0 billion for Other Procurement, 

Army, of which $46.0 million was for line number 71, Modification 

of In Service Equipment (Intelligence Support). 

The committee notes that United States Southern Command 

identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million to line number 71, Modification of In Service Equipment (Intelligence Support). 

Army automated data processing equipment 

The budget request included $8.0 billion in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), of which $201.9 million was for line number 112, 

automated data processing equipment. 

The committee notes that the Army is moving towards adoption 

of more commercial information technology (IT) solutions, including 

commercial cloud and networking capabilities and consolidating 

more IT purchases with other Department of Defense elements and 

services. As the Army consolidates IT purchases and develops integrated personnel systems in other budget lines, the committee expects to see a decrease in this budget line. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for line number 112, automated data processing equipment. 

17 

Navy 

F–35C Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in line number 3 of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of nine F–35C aircraft. 

The committee supports the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter and the 

delivery of its unique capabilities to our warfighters as quickly as 

reasonably possible. However, the committee remains concerned 

with the state of the F–35 sustainment enterprise and its ability 

to efficiently and affordably bear the rapidly increasing demands 

upon it. 

The committee believes the enterprise is behind, particularly in 

regards to spare parts and depot component repair capacity. If the 

program does not allow the sustainment enterprise to catch up to 

the currently fielded and soon to be fielded aircraft, maintenance 

will continue to fall further behind its needed capability and capacity and will ultimately reduce the number of aircraft the Department of Defense is able to procure, sustain, and upgrade. 

The Navy and Joint Program Office’s belated appreciation for the 

need for a shipboard intermediate maintenance capability has further challenged the ability to effectively and efficiently sustain the 

Department of the Navy’s F–35s going forward. 

The committee believes it is prudent to establish a solid 

sustainment base before the steep ramp of production aircraft overwhelms the enterprise’s ability to sustain them. Elsewhere in this 

legislation, the committee seeks to increase funding for F–35 

spares, modifications, and depot repair capability. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $121.0 million and one aircraft in line number 3 of APN. 

E–2D Advanced Hawkeye 

The budget request included $742.7 million in line number 16 of 

Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN), for the procurement of four E– 

2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the vital contributions of the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye to present and future carrier air wing operations. 

As the airborne battle manager, the E–2D is the linchpin for carrier strike group concepts of operations, including Naval Integrated 

Fire Control—Counter Air. 

The committee is supportive of accelerating capabilities that enhance our abilities to deter and, if necessary, defeat any peer or 

near-peer adversary. The committee also recognizes the critical 

need to provide our weapons schools with the latest equipment to 

ensure the most relevant and effective tactics are being developed 

and disseminated. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $175.0 million in line number 16 of APN for the procurement of one additional E–2D aircraft. This item was included on the Chief of Naval 

Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

USMC OA–X light attack procurement 

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft Procurement, 

Navy (APN), for the acquisition of a fleet of light attack aircraft. 

18 

The committee believes that, as the nation’s middle-weight expeditionary force-in-readiness, the Marine Corps could benefit from a 

fleet of low-cost, light attack aircraft that would require minimal 

work to develop. These aircraft could conduct counterterrorism operations, perform close air support (CAS), and other missions in 

permissive and semi-permissive environments such as those where 

employing low altitude rotary-wing CAS platforms has proven prohibitive. These aircraft would also help season pilots to mitigate 

the potential for a shortfall in the future. The low cost per flight 

hour, simplicity, and tailored capabilities of a light attack platform 

could also provide a significant increase in the amount of support 

provided to Marine, joint force, and allied ground units. It may also 

help provide an affordable path to a light attack capability for allies, partners, and friends with limited financial resources. 

The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps’ future tactical aviation foundation rests almost solely on 5th generation 

fighters such as the F–35B and C variants. However, the bulk of 

Marine Corps aviation missions executed in the past 15 years 

revolve around providing CAS and non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (NT–ISR) flights. While the F–35 offers unique capabilities against a peer competitor, the committee 

questions the value of using such an exquisite platform, with its 

high cost per flight hour, short time-on station, and low readiness 

rates, to perform CAS and NT–ISR missions in support of enduring 

requirements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, on the African continent 

and for other limited contingency operations. Additionally, using a 

light attack platform to meet the majority of Marine CAS and NT– 

ISR requirements reduces the wear on expensive, low-observable 

aircraft and enables those aircrews to focus on their primary operational missions in high-end contested and degraded operations 

against potential peer adversaries. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in APN, line number 71, for a total of $100.0 million, for acquisition of a light attack aircraft fleet. This effort will be informed by 

the Air Force’s Light Attack Capabilities Experimentation Campaign conducted in fiscal year 2017 to evaluate capabilities for 

armed reconnaissance, strike control and reconnaissance, combat 

search and rescue, CAS, and other combat missions. 

C–40 aircraft 

The budget request included $206.0 million in line number 18 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of two C–40 

aircraft. 

The committee notes that two C–40 aircraft were included in the 

Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–141), and therefore the requested aircraft are excess to need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $206.0 million and two aircraft in line 18 of APN. 

19 

USMC Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft System procurement 

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft Procurement, 

Navy (APN) for the acquisition of Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) Group 5 drones. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps uses the RQ– 

21A Blackjack Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to provide Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) for its Ground Combat Element. Numerous Urgent Universal Need Statements from 

operational commanders have repeatedly pointed out serious shortfalls in the range, payload, survivability, and overall effectiveness 

of the RQ–21 system. The proposed solution to many of these shortfalls is an, as yet undetermined, replacement system called the Marine Air Ground Task Force Unmanned Expeditionary Capability 

(MUX) system. This system’s Initial Operational Capability date 

has shifted from 2015, as reported in the Marine Corps Aviation 

Plan in 2005, to sometime after 2026, with a Full Operational Capability forecasted for 2035 or later. 

The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps’ lack of reliable capability and capacity in the UAS field leaves them vulnerable to enemy action and less effective at completing their assigned 

missions over the next decade or longer. The committee also notes 

that the Marine Corps is currently operating MQ–9 Reaper UAS 

under contract to support operations in Afghanistan. The committee believes that a MALE Group 5 type UAS platform offers the 

best combination of capabilities available currently to support maneuver elements on the ground. Such platforms are able to perform 

ISR, Signals Intelligence, Electronic Warfare, fire support and communications relay tasks and have proven range, survivability, and 

reliability characteristics from years of use supporting ground and 

special operations units. Procurement of a Group 5 type MALE 

UAS solves all of the capability and performance gaps of the RQ– 

21 and will help the Marine Corps to more precisely refine its requirements for the future MUX program. Additionally, the experience gained in MALE UAS operations and fire support execution 

as well as the ISR acquired by using such a system will help to 

train and educate a new generation of Marine UAS operators and 

planners, who will then be ready to transition smoothly to a future 

MUX system. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in APN, line number 72, for a total of $100.0 million, for acquisition of a Group 5 MALE UAS fleet. 

EA–18G cognitive electronic warfare 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in line number 30 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of modifications to all models of the F/A–18 aircraft. 

The committee recognizes the growing importance of electronic 

warfare and its critical role in any fight with a peer or near-peer 

adversary. The committee believes it is imperative the United 

States maintains relevant and effective electronic warfare capabilities. Moving forward, the ability to sense and react to the electromagnetic spectrum will be key to success in any conflict. 

20 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.9 million in line number 30 of APN for Reactive Electronic Attack Measures technology for the EA–18G Growler. This item was included 

on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

Adaptive Radar Countermeasure 

The budget request included $166.3 million in line number 49 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of common 

electronic countermeasures equipment. 

The committee understands that the survivability of U.S. strike 

fighters will clearly be essential to the success of any conflict with 

a peer or near-peer adversary. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in line number 49 of APN for Adaptive Radar Countermeasure 

(ARC). This item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ 

unfunded priorities list. 

F–35B modifications 

The budget request included $36.6 million in line number 59 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), F–35B STOVL Series, for procurement of modifications to F–35B aircraft. 

The Department of Defense continues to deal with the ramifications of the concurrency of development and production of the F– 

35. As the number of fielded aircraft grows while development is 

still ongoing, the costs continue to rise. Concurrency will continue 

to be a logistical and financial burden as the program moves on to 

the Block 4 modernization program, known as Continuous Capability Development and Delivery. According to recent estimates, the 

cost of upgrading aircraft up to the Block 4 configuration will be 

from $12.0 to $16.0 million per jet, adding to the already considerable affordability issues facing the program. 

The committee supports upgrading as many F–35s as possible to 

the most advanced configuration in order to, most importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining multiple configurations of 

three different aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $33.5 million in line number 59 of APN for F–35B modifications. 

F–35C modifications 

The budget request included $21.2 million in line number 60 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), F–35 CV Series, for procurement of modifications to F–35C aircraft. 

The Department of Defense continues to deal with the ramifications of the concurrency of development and production of the F– 

35. As the number of fielded aircraft grows while development is 

still ongoing, the costs continue to rise. Concurrency will continue 

to be a logistical and financial burden as the program moves on to 

the Block 4 modernization program, known as Continuous Capability Development and Delivery. According to recent estimates, the 

cost of upgrading aircraft up to the Block 4 configuration will be 

from $12.0 to $16.0 million per jet, adding to the already considerable affordability issues facing the program. 

21 

The committee supports upgrading as many F–35s as possible to 

the most advanced configuration in order to, most importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining multiple configurations of 

three different aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in line number 60 of APN for F–35C modifications. 

F–35 spares and repair parts 

The budget request included $1.8 billion in line number 64 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for procurement of aircraft 

spares and repair parts. 

The committee remains concerned by the readiness rates of the 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. A particularly concerning trend is the 

increase in the percentage of aircraft unable to fly while awaiting 

replacement parts due to inadequate supply support, known as the 

Not Mission Capable—Supply (NMC–S) rate. As the Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) notes in the January 

2018 annual report, ‘‘Concurrency of production and development, 

lower-than-expected reliability for parts, inadequate fault isolation, 

and early program decisions to not adequately fund procurement of 

spares have contributed to the NMC–S rate.’’ 

Given this situation, which will be exacerbated as production 

ramps up steeply in the coming years, the committee is perplexed 

by the Services’ combined decrease of $546.4 million for F–35 

spares between fiscal years 2020 and 2022. While the Department 

of Defense claims the cuts are due to ‘‘process improvements by 

Services to meet Departmental readiness efficiency goals in military spending,’’ the committee is unaware of any such process improvements that would resolve a NMC–S rate that is nearly double 

the goal, let alone that would warrant cutting a half billion dollars 

in spare parts. Should such process improvements exist, the committee strongly urges the Services to share them, as they would 

clearly bring immense benefit to the entire Department. 

The committee believes the F–35 program urgently needs to increase the supply of spare parts. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for F–35B spares and repair parts and $20.0 million F–35C 

spares and repair parts for a total increase of $50.0 million in line 

number 64 of APN for aircraft spares and repair parts. 

Sidewinder 

The budget request included $77.9 million in line number 5 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Sidewinder missile. 

The committee notes that after several years of assuming risk in 

the procurement of munitions, the current level of munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at the maximum 

production capacity. However, there are several munitions that are 

not funded at maximum capacity within the budget request. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million in line number 5 of WPN for an additional 58 missiles. This 

increases procurement to the maximum capacity for Sidewinder. 

This was on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

22 

Long range anti-ship missile 

The budget request included $81.2 million in line number 17 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the long range anti-ship 

missile. 

The committee notes that after several years of assuming risk in 

the procurement of munitions, the current level of munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at the maximum 

production capacity. However, there are several munitions that are 

not funded at maximum capacity within the budget request. The 

long range anti-ship missile is a highly-capable system that is critical for the warfight. 

The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in line 

number 17 of WPN for an additional 10 missiles. This increases 

procurement to the maximum capacity for the long range anti-ship 

missile. This was on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

Harpoon block II 

The budget request included $14.8 million in line number 20 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Harpoon missile. 

The committee notes that after several years of assuming risk in 

the procurement of munitions the current level of munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at the maximum 

production capacity. However, there are several munitions that are 

not funded at maximum capacity within the budget request. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in line 

number 20 of WPN for an additional 48 missiles. This increases 

procurement to the maximum capacity for the Harpoon block II 

and accelerates meeting total requirement in fiscal year 2020 instead of 2021. This was on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded 

priorities list. 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile 

The budget request included $188.0 million in line number 21 in 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for Harm Mods. 

The committee notes that the Navy is currently in full rate production for the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) 

and requested to purchase 257 missiles in fiscal year 2019. The 

committee also notes that the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E) recently stated that the AARGM Block I was 

‘‘not adequate to support an evaluation of operational effectiveness 

or survivability.’’ Furthermore, DOT&E stated that the AARGM 

Block I ‘‘provides limited employment capability against advanced 

threat surface-to-air radar systems.’’ Given the directive by new 

National Defense Strategy to prioritize competition against nearpeer adversaries, the committee believes that the Navy must reevaluate the AARGM program of record. The committee believes 

the Navy should seek a solution that will be operationally effective 

against advanced threats surface-to-air radar systems and 

deprioritize investments on programs that are not. 

23 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $113.9 million in line number 21 in WPN, which reduces the quantity by 200 

missiles. 

MK48 torpedoes 

The budget request included $92.6 million in line number 27 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the MK–48 torpedo. 

The committee notes that after several years of assuming risk in 

the procurement of munitions, the current level of munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this, the Department of Defense has requested many munitions be funded at the maximum 

production capacity. However, there are several munitions that are 

not funded at maximum capacity within the budget request. The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in line 

number 27 of WPN for an additional five torpedoes. This increases 

procurement to the maximum capacity for the MK–48. This was on 

the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

LCS module weapons 

The budget request included $11.4 million in line number 39 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for procurement of Littoral 

Combat Ship module weapons, including 90 Longbow Hellfire missiles. 

The committee notes the Navy, which has procured 134 Longbow 

Hellfire Missiles for the surface-to-surface missile module (SSMM) 

program in previous years, plans to complete developmental testing, initial operational test and evaluation, and declare initial operational capability in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0 million 

to reduce missile quantities until operational testing is completed. 

Advanced low-cost munitions ordnance 

The budget request included $33.6 million in line number 10 of 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps (PANMC), of 

which $19.5 million was for the procurement of the advanced lowcost munitions ordnance (ALAMO) rounds. 

The committee believes the request to purchase 1,500 rounds is 

ahead of need as testing has not been complete. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.0 million 

in line number 10 of PANMC to reduce the procurement of ALAMO 

by 1,000 rounds. The remaining 500 rounds should be used to complete operational testing. 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included $2.8 billion in line number 5 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class submarine advance procurement. 

The committee recommends an additional $250.0 million for the 

Secretary of the Navy to use for: (1) Economic order quantity for 

the fiscal year 2019 through 2023 multiyear Virginia-class submarine procurement, which may include the addition of a third 

submarine in both fiscal years 2022 and 2023; or (2) To expand second and third tier contractors in the submarine industrial base to 

support planned increased production requirements. 

24 

If the Secretary pursues option (2), consistent with the statement 

of managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), the Secretary shall notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days of obligating funds for such purpose of the obligation date, contractor 

name or names, location, description of the shortfall to be addressed, actions to be undertaken, desired end state, usable end 

items to be procured, period of performance, dollar amount, projected associated savings including business case analysis if applicable, contract name, and contract number. 

The committee believes that utilizing economic order quantity 

procurement, procuring additional submarines, and expanding the 

capabilities of the supplier base should lead to greater cost savings 

and improved efficiency as production increases to meet the Columbia-class schedule and higher requirement for attack submarines in 

the Navy’s latest Force Structure Assessment. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million in line number 5 of SCN for Virginia-class submarine advance 

procurement. 

DDG–1000 

The budget request included $271.0 million in line number 8 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of the 

DDG–1000 program. 

The committee notes these funds are requested as subsequent 

year full funding. The committee is unaware of incremental funding authority for this program in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $271.0 million in line number 8 of SCN and transfer of these funds to line 

number 28 for completion of the prior year shipbuilding program. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 

The budget request included $5.3 billion in line number 9 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer procurement. 

The committee notes the budget request includes procurement of 

three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which is one additional destroyer in fiscal year 2019 as compared to last year’s request. The 

committee further notes the unit costs of the fiscal year 2019 destroyers slightly increased. The committee believes a higher procurement rate should decrease unit costs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.5 million 

in line number 9 of SCN. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement 

The budget request included $391.9 million in line number 10 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer advance procurement. 

The committee notes the Navy future years defense program includes procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal 

year 2020, which would be procured using a multiyear procurement 

contract. The committee understands that advance procurement of 

long lead time material could reduce component costs and enable 

optimal ship construction intervals. 

25 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million in line number 10 of SCN. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The budget request included $749.2 million in line number 11 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of one 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). 

The committee notes the one LCS requested in fiscal year 2019 

is the last ship of the class. Accordingly, the committee recommends adjusting the plans and other cost categories to align 

with the end of production. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $70.0 million 

in line number 11 of SCN. Additionally, the committee requests the 

Secretary of the Navy establish a separate SCN line number for 

the Frigate (FFG(X)) in the fiscal year 2020 budget request. 

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement 

The budget request included no funding in line number 12 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement or advance procurement of LPD-class amphibious transport ships. 

The committee notes the Navy has identified LPD–30, which was 

authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as the first Flight 

II LPD. The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost 

estimate precision have been achieved to award a multiyear procurement contract for Flight II LPD-class ships, which will be procured in fiscal years 2020 through 2024. 

The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Navy and 

Commandant of the Marine Corps testified on April 19, 2018, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate that they support the addition of the Vertical Launch System to Flight II LPDclass ships. The committee believes this increased capability merits 

serious consideration, including the applicable concepts of operation, requirements, and ship design changes. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 million in line number 12 of SCN for advance procurement for Flight 

II LPD-class ships, which the Secretary of the Navy may use for: 

(1) Economic order quantity procurement associated with a 

multiyear procurement contract or contracts awarded pursuant to 

section 2306b of title 10, United States Code; and/or (2) Advance 

procurement of the amphibious transport ship designated LPD–31. 

Outfitting 

The budget request included $634.0 million in line number 21 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting. 

Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes post-delivery funding is early to need for CVN–79, DDG–1002, and SSN–793. 

The committee also notes unjustified outfitting cost growth for 

LCS–11, LCS–13, LCS–14, LCS–15, LCS–16, LCS–17, LCS–18, 

LCS–19, LCS–20, LCS–22, DDG–119, and DDG–121. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $72.0 million 

in line number 21 of SCN. 

26 

Service craft 

The budget request included $72.1 million in line number 23 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for service craft. 

The committee understands the current Navy Surface Warfare 

Officer (SWO) candidate training curriculum is comprised of primarily classroom and simulator training methods. The committee 

believes SWO candidates lack sufficient at-sea training before reporting to their first ships. The committee is concerned that the 

lack of practical at-sea experience before reporting to their first 

ships may result in SWOs having gaps in their foundational safety, 

seamanship, and navigation knowledge, skills, and experience. The 

committee has previously encouraged the Navy to utilize Navy 

Yard Patrol (YP) craft for SWO candidate training in the Senate 

report accompanying S. 2943 (S. Rept. 114–255) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

Additionally, the 2017 Comprehensive Review of Surface Force Incidents directed an evaluation of the use of YP craft in all officer 

accession programs, including the feasibility of expanding YP craft 

use. 

Since at least 1975, YP craft have been used by the Navy to train 

naval officer candidates. Currently, the Navy maintains 24 YP 

craft, based in Annapolis, Maryland, to provide realistic, at-sea 

training in basic to advanced navigation and seamanship. Of these 

24 craft, Navy officials have stated six YP 676 class craft are slated 

for near-term disposal, 12 YP 676 class craft are only able to conduct local operations, and six YP 703 class craft can conduct outof-area training with a range of 1,680 nautical miles and 40 personnel embarked. 

The Navy conducts annual Atlantic Patrol summer training 

cruises, known as LANTPAT, with the six YP 703 class craft, 

which provide four-week cruises for approximately 400 Naval Academy midshipmen and international students with port visits in locations such as New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The 

Navy plans to expand this effort by having 80 Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps midshipmen take part in LANTPAT cruises in 

both 2018 and 2019. The committee understands that, if additional 

craft were available, potentially all of the approximately 260 

NROTC midshipmen who will become SWOs could take part in a 

LANTPAT cruise. The additional craft could also increase 

LANTPAT participation of Naval Academy midshipmen, as well as 

new SWO candidate graduates of the Officer Candidate School. 

In order to increase LANTPAT training opportunities for SWO 

candidates from all accession sources as soon as possible, the committee believes that, at a minimum, the Navy should replace the 

six YP 676 class craft slated for disposal with new YP 703 craft 

that incorporate modernization, training, and habitability improvements derived from lessons learned with existing YP 703 craft. 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to release a request for proposals for the detail design and construction of upgraded YP 703 class craft not later than fiscal year 2019, with an 

award for the first such craft not later than fiscal year 2020. Based 

on YP 703 class craft actual procurement costs, the committee believes the design, non-recurring engineering, government support, 

27 

and construction costs for the first upgraded YP 703 class craft 

should not exceed $25.0 million. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in line number 23 of SCN. 

Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs 

The budget request included $207.1 million in line number 28 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for completion of prior 

year shipbuilding programs. The committee notes $271.0 million are requested in line number 

8 as subsequent year full funding for the DDG–1000 program. The 

committee is unaware of incremental funding authority for this 

program in fiscal year 2019. 

The committee further notes the budget request in line number 

28 funds completion of prior year shipbuilding programs, including 

cost overruns for seven Littoral Combat Ships, three Arleigh Burke- class destroyers, three Ship to Shore Connectors, CVN–78, and 

LHA–7. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $271.0 million in line number 28 of SCN and the transfer of these funds from 

line number 8. 

Cable ship 

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for a cable ship. The committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million in line 

number 29 of SCN for procurement of one cable ship and directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to utilize an existing United States or 

foreign design, with modifications he deems necessary, to maximize 

affordability and expedite delivery. 

Other navigation equipment 

The budget request included $63.3 million in line number 4 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of other navigation equipment. 

The committee notes the 2017 Comprehensive Review of Surface 

Force Incidents recommended accelerating the transition to Electronic Chart Display and Information System—Navy (ECDIS–N) 

versions 9.4 and greater on all ships. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in line number 4 of OPN to accelerate the installation of 

ECDIS–N upgrades. 

DDG–1000 class support equipment 

The budget request included $89.7 million in line number 16 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of DDG–1000 

class support equipment. 

The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 request increased $38.4 

million above last year’s planned request for fiscal year 2019 of 

$51.3 million. The committee further notes the Navy attributes this 

$38.4 million increase to funding activities that overlap with those 

funded in the DDG–1000 research and development program element (PE 0204202N), which increased $40.8 million above last 

year’s planned request for fiscal year 2019. 

28 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $38.4 million 

in line number 16 of OPN. 

Items less than $5 million 

The budget request included $126.9 million in line number 22 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of items less 

than $5.0 million. 

The committee notes this funding includes $32.9 million for 

CVN–78 in-service requirements. However, the committee lacks 

sufficient budget justification (e.g., P–3a exhibit) to support this request. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million 

in line number 22 of OPN and requests the Navy consolidate Fordclass OPN requests in a new line number. 

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules 

The budget request included $124.1 million in line number 32 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission modules. 

The committee notes $19.3 million in line number 52 would procure Knifefish and Unmanned Influence Sweep System training assets for LCS mine countermeasures mission modules. 

The committee further notes $8.6 million in line number 53 

would procure a Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis 

airborne mine countermeasures system block one training asset for 

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.9 million and discontinuing use of line numbers 52 and 53 of OPN for 

procurement of systems associated with LCS mine countermeasures mission modules. 

LCS anti-submarine warfare mission modules 

The budget request included $57.3 million in line number 33 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) anti-submarine warfare mission modules. 

The committee recommends procuring one Escort Mission Module (EMM) in fiscal year 2019 and delaying procurement at a rate 

of two EMMs per year until operational testing is completed for 

both LCS variants, which is planned for fiscal year 2020. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $18.0 million 

in line number 33 of OPN. 

LCS surface warfare mission modules 

The budget request included $26.0 million in line number 34 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) surface warfare mission modules. 

The committee notes the surface-to-surface missile module 

(SSMM) program plans to complete developmental testing, initial 

operational test and evaluation, declare initial operational capability (IOC), and procure 2 additional SSMMs in fiscal year 2019. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.5 million 

in line number 34 of OPN to limit procurement to a single SSMM 

until IOC is declared. 

29 

Surface ship torpedo defense 

The budget request included $11.3 million in line number 42 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for surface ship torpedo defense 

programs. 

The committee notes a delay in the AN/SLQ–25E contract award. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million 

in line number 42 of OPN. 

Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination of 

the Torpedo Warning System (TWS), which addressed a critical capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide the congressional defense committees with a report on the specific capability 

gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly fielded to address, the performance of the TWS in addressing such gap or gaps, the 

warfighting risk that will be accepted without the TWS deployed, 

and the Navy’s plans to address the specific capability gap or gaps 

without the TWS deployed. 

Cooperative Engagement Capability 

The budget request included $44.2 million in line number 48 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of Cooperative 

Engagement Capability. 

The committee notes Common Array Block pre-production unit 

schedule delays. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0 million 

in line number 48 of OPN. 

Minesweeping system replacement 

The budget request included $35.7 million in line number 52 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of minesweeping 

replacement systems. 

The committee notes $19.3 million of this funding would procure 

Knifefish and Unmanned Influence Sweep System training assets 

for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission 

modules. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.3 million 

in line number 52 of OPN, transfer of these funds to line number 

32, and discontinuing use of line number 52 for procurement of systems associated with LCS mine countermeasures mission modules. 

Shallow water mine countermeasures 

The budget request included $8.6 million in line number 53 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of shallow water 

mine countermeasures systems. 

The committee notes this funding would procure a Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis airborne mine countermeasures system block one training asset for Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) mine countermeasures mission modules. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.6 million 

in line number 53 of OPN, transfer of these funds to line number 

32, and discontinuing use of line number 53 for procurement of systems associated with LCS mine countermeasures mission modules. 

30 

Next Generation Surface Search Radar 

The budget request included $148.4 million in line number 71 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of items less 

than $5.0 million. 

The committee notes $58.4 million of this request would fund the 

Next Generation Surface Search Radar (NGSSR) program, including non-recurring engineering, procurement of 43 units, and installation. The committee further notes installations are scheduled to 

begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.4 million 

in line number 71 of OPN due to installation funding ahead of 

need. Additionally, while recognizing fielding NGSSR is a priority 

for the Navy, the committee is concerned by the cost and schedule 

risk posed by the concurrent nature of the acquisition strategy, specifically concurrent NGSSR engineering, testing, shipboard integration, and procurement of 43 NGSSRs in fiscal year 2019. 

Additionally, the committee understands that NGSSR will be the 

primary navigation radar replacement. The committee believes the 

NGSSR should include the capability to record and retain radar 

data for investigative and other purposes. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than October 1, 2018, on the capability of surface navigation radars 

to record and retain radar data for investigative and other purposes. This report shall include: (1) The current capability and capacity of surface navigation radars (e.g., AN/SPS–73) to record and 

retain radar data; (2) The current methods used by the Navy to reconstruct surface navigation radar data for investigative and other 

purposes; (3) The planned NGSSR capability and capacity to record 

and retain radar data; and (4) Once the NGSSR is fielded, the 

methods planned to be used by the Navy to reconstruct surface 

navigation radar data for investigative and other purposes. 

Cryptologic communications equipment 

The budget request included $14.2 million in line number 82 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for procurement of cryptologic 

communications equipment. 

The committee notes that U.S. Southern Command identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority 

with a specific need for increased cryptologic carry-on collection capability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million 

in line number 82 of OPN. 

Sonobuoys 

The budget request included $199.0 million in line number 88 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of 

sonobuoys. 

The committee notes greater than expected sonobuoy expenditures in fiscal year 2018 resulted in the Chief of Naval Operations 

requesting procurement of additional sonobuoys as a fiscal year 

2019 unfunded priority. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $36.0 million in line number 88 of OPN. 

31 

Navy port waterborne security barriers 

The budget request included $175.4 million in line number 129 

of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of physical 

security equipment. 

The committee notes the former Commander of Navy Installations Command, Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, testified before the 

Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on April 5, 2016, that 

current Navy maritime security barriers do ‘‘not meet the requirement for high-speed boats that could be used for a terrorist attack.’’ 

Furthermore, the committee is aware of significant performance 

shortfalls of the current maritime security barriers that continue to 

result in unacceptable anti-terrorism and force protection gaps in 

at least one location. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy has not set requirements, requested funding, or released a request for proposals to 

procure new Navy port waterborne security barriers. 

Accordingly, the committee urges the Navy to expeditiously set 

requirements, request funding, and release a request for proposals 

with full and open competition for new Navy port waterborne security barriers. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in line number 129 of OPN. 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle Survivability Upgrade 

The budget request included $156.2 million in line number 1 of 

Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) Survivability Upgrade Program (SUP) 

armored vehicles. 

The committee understands that the AAV SUP will produce marginal improvements in the vehicle’s overall survivability and that 

few of the proposed enhancements address threats the vehicle may 

face in conflict against a peer adversary. The AAV is a decades-old 

platform with legacy amphibious and combat capabilities that do 

not meet the needs of modern Marine amphibious forcible entry operations. Rather than continue to invest in a vehicle that, even in 

upgraded form, will not provide adequate maneuverability, survivability or ship-to-shore performance the committee believes these 

funds would be better used elsewhere to support modernization initiatives across the force. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $78.1 million 

in line number 1 of PMC. 

Command post systems 

The budget request included $124.8 million in line number 32 of 

Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of command post systems. 

The committee notes that the majority of this budget line is dedicated to procuring Networking On The Move (NOTM) systems for 

air and ground platforms. The NOTM system represents one method to achieve long range data and voice communications, however 

it has operational performance issues and is not considered a Low 

Probability of Detection or Low Probability of Intercept system. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million 

in line number 32 of PMC. 

32 

Training devices 

The budget request included $52.0 million in line number 48 of 

Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC), for the procurement of training 

devices. 

This budget line includes funding for training devices and simulators for obsolete equipment to include the Amphibious Assault 

Vehicle, Light Armored Vehicle, M16A2, M249 SAW, MP5, M240G, 

Mk-153 SMAW, and other systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.4 million 

in line number 48 of PMC. 

Air Force 

F–35A Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $4.3 billion in line number 1 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of 48 F–35A 

aircraft. 

The committee supports the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter and delivery of its unique capabilities to our warfighters as quickly as reasonably possible. However, the committee remains concerned with 

the state of the F–35 sustainment enterprise and its ability to bear 

the rapidly increasing demands upon it efficiently and affordably. 

The committee believes the enterprise is behind, particularly in regards to spare parts and depot component repair capacity. If the 

program does not allow the sustainment enterprise to catch up to 

the currently fielded and soon to be fielded aircraft, sustainment 

capability will continue to fall farther and further behind its needed capability and capacity, which will ultimately reduce the number of aircraft the Department of Defense is able to procure, sustain, and upgrade. 

The committee believes it is prudent to establish a solid 

sustainment base before the steep ramp of production aircraft overwhelms the enterprise’s ability to sustain them. Elsewhere in this 

legislation, the committee seeks to increase funding for F–35 

spares, modifications, and depot repair capability. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 mil- lion for depot repair capability standup and a decrease of $92.5 

million, or one aircraft, for a total decrease of $67.5 million in line 

number 1 of APAF. 

OA–X light attack aircraft 

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft Procurement, 

Air Force (APAF), for the acquisition of a fleet of light attack aircraft. 

The recently published National Defense Strategy (NDS) clearly 

states the need to conduct operations in permissive environments 

with lower-cost platforms and concepts of operations than is being 

done currently, both to be more fiscally efficient and to free our 

more capable, multi-role aircraft assets to focus on rebuilding readiness and deterring peer competitors. The NDS additionally places 

a strong emphasis on the need to enhance partnerships with our 

allies throughout the world. The committee strongly believes that 

a light attack fleet is ideally suited to meet both of these strategic 

demands. 

33 

The committee has been encouraged by the Air Force’s moves towards pursuing the acquisition of a fleet of light attack aircraft, including a $2.4 billion wedge in the out years of the future years defense program. However, the committee believes that the Air Force 

continues to move slower than is warranted or than the speed at 

which senior leadership proclaims they want to move. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $350.0 million in APAF, line number 18, for the acquisition of light attack 

aircraft and their associated long lead material. 

KC–46A Pegasus 

The budget request included $2.6 billion in line number 4 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of 15 KC– 

46 tanker aircraft. 

The committee remains supportive of the KC–46 tanker but continues to be frustrated by the repeated delays to achieving required 

certification and unforeseen technical challenges that continue to 

plague the program. Over the seven years since the program contract was awarded in February 2011, key schedule dates have 

slipped later and later, in some cases more than three years. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on 

April 18, 2018, KC–46 Modernization: Program Cost is Stable, but 

Schedule May Be Further Delayed,’’ which states that ‘‘the program updated its delivery schedule in 2017 to allow Boeing to delay 

delivery of the first 18 fully capable aircraft from August 2017 to 

October 2018 / 14 months. A schedule risk assessment, as well as 

GAO’s analysis, however projects that deliveries could slip to May 

2019, 21 months from the original schedule, if risks are not mitigated.’’ With military certification testing, receiver certification, 

and resolution of Category 1 discrepancies still to be completed, the 

committee remains unconvinced that there will not be further 

delays to the program. 

While attention has been focused on the delivery of the first aircraft, the committee notes that first delivery is simply the first step 

to bringing capability to the warfighter. Successful completion of 

full receiver aircraft certification, Initial Operational Test and 

Evaluation, delivery of the required assets available (to include 

wing air refueling pod sets), and a positive full rate production decision will be the true guideposts. 

Additionally, while the committee understands the need to be 

flexible as a program encounters delays, the committee is disappointed the Air Force has, on more than one occasion, changed 

the criteria the contractor needs to meet before first delivery. The 

committee expects the Air Force to hold the contractor to the contracted agreements, and should the contract be breached, pursue 

appropriate consideration. 

Meanwhile, production of aircraft continues apace, with nearly 

40 aircraft in some phase of production or modification. As the 

April 18, 2018, GAO report notes, ‘‘Based on the updated schedule, 

Boeing will be producing 49 aircraft, or about 27 percent of the 

total aircraft the Air Force will buy, before developmental testing 

is complete.’’ While the contractor is responsible for paying for any 

required modifications, the concurrency of production and development will impact delivering capability to the Air Force. 

34 

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office identified $102.7 million of funding for KC–46 interim contractor support 

that is early to need. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $145.2 million, or one KC–46 aircraft, and $102.7 million for interim contractor support for a total decrease of $247.9 million in line number 

4 of APAF. 

MQ–9 

The budget request included $221.7 million in line number 17 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of 29 

MQ–9 aircraft. 

The committee understands the Air Force is moving toward establishing an Advanced Battle Management System concept. As 

part of this effort, the Air Force intends to emplace a Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capability on a number of its MQ–9 

Reaper fleet to provide GMTI in low-threat areas. The committee 

is supportive of providing more capabilities to its MQ–9 fleet and 

of executing operations in permissive environments in a more fiscally efficient manner. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force’s plan to 

use MQ–9s for GMTI missions without increasing capacity will 

overtask an already heavily utilized asset. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $120.0 

million in line 17 of APAF for six additional MQ–9 aircraft in order 

to accelerate the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System. 

B–52 

The budget request included $105.5 million in line number 21 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for B–52 modifications. 

The Air Force has requested a transfer of $14.8 million from this 

line to Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Air 

Force. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.8 million 

in line number 21 of APAF. 

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

The budget request included $105.5 million in line number 21 in 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for B–52. 

The B–52 will be certified to carry the Joint Air-to-Surface 

Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM–ER). The long range 

anti-ship missile (LRASM) has the same physical configuration as 

the JASSM–ER. The Air Force is procuring 50 LRASMs. Currently, 

the LRASM is certified to be carried on the B–1. However, given 

the Air Force plans to eventually retire the B–1, and the critical 

capability and expensive nature of the LRASM, the committee requires the Air Force certify the B–52 to carry the LRASM. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in line number 21 in APAF to certify the LRASM on the B– 

52. 

A–10 replacement wing program 

The budget request included $109.1 million in line number 23 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications to the A– 

35 

10 aircraft, including $79.2 million for the wing replacement program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $65.0 million in line 

number 23 of APAF for the A–10 wing replacement program. 

F–35A modifications 

The budget request included $247.3 million in line number 29 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of modifications to F–35A aircraft. 

The committee supports upgrading as many F–35s as possible to 

the most advanced configuration in order to, most importantly, provide the best capability to the warfighter, but also reduce the complication of maintaining and sustaining multiple configurations of 

three different aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in line number 29 of APAF for F–35A modifications. 

C–130 propulsion upgrade 

The budget request included $22.1 million in line number 50 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications to the 

legacy C–130 and Special Mission C–130 aircraft. 

The committee notes that the budget request did not include any 

funding for the C–130H T56 Series 3.5 Engine Enhancement Packages (EEPs) in this or any other line. 

The committee has been encouraged by the results of the Air 

Force’s testing of the T56 Series 3.5 engine upgrade and the resulting performance and fuel efficiency gains it brings. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $74.0 million in line number 50 of APAF for C–130H T56 Series 3.5 EEPs. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

The budget request included $22.9 million in line number 59 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for modifications to the E– 

8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS). 

The committee understands the Air Force is seeking to retire 

three JSTARS aircraft in fiscal year 2019, forgo recapitalizing the 

JSTARS fleet, and move towards an Advanced Battle Management 

System (ABMS). The committee supports the Air Force’s move toward establishing advanced capabilities and concepts of operations 

to enhance effectiveness in any potential conflict with a peer or 

near-peer adversary. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Air Force is divesting proven capability before its planned replacement is matured, 

let alone fielded. The committee is particularly concerned that the 

Air Force’s plan to divest the JSTARS fleet by the mid-2020s will 

leave a significant capability gap in the mid- to late-2020s should 

implementation of ABMS be delayed or prove unfeasible. 

The committee believes the JSTARS aircraft remains a critical 

capability for our warfighters in the near- to mid-term. In order to 

ensure its relevance and effectiveness as an interim capability as 

the Air Force transitions to an ABMS, JSTARS requires upgrades, 

including to its central computer. 

36 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in line 59 of APAF for JSTARS central computer upgrade design. 

F–35A spares and repair parts 

The budget request included $956.4 million in line number 70 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of aircraft spares and repair parts. 

The committee remains concerned by the readiness rates of the 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. A particularly concerning trend is the 

increase in the percentage of aircraft unable to fly while awaiting 

replacement parts due to inadequate supply support, known as the 

Not Mission Capable—Supply (NMC–S) rate. As the Office of the 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) notes in the 

January 2018, DOT&E annual report, ‘‘Concurrency of production 

and development, lower-than-expected reliability for parts, inadequate fault isolation, and early program decisions to not adequately fund procurement of spares have contributed to the NMC– 

S rate.’’ 

Given this situation, which will be exacerbated as production 

ramps up steeply in the coming years, the committee is perplexed 

by the Services’ combined decrease of $546.4 million for F–35 

spares between fiscal years 2020 and 2022. While the Department 

of Defense claims the cuts are due to ‘‘process improvements by 

Services to meet Departmental readiness efficiency goals in military spending,’’ the committee is unaware of any such process improvements that would resolve a NMC–S rate that is nearly double 

the goal, let alone that would warrant cutting more than a half billion dollars in spare parts. Should such process improvements 

exist, the committee strongly urges the Services to share them, as 

they would clearly bring immense benefit to the entire Department. 

The committee believes the F–35 program urgently needs to increase the supply of spare parts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in line number 70 of APAF 

for F–35A spares and repair parts. 

Air Force long range anti-ship missile 

The budget request included $44.2 million in line number 3 of 

Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for the long range antiship missile. 

The committee notes that, after several years of assuming risk 

in the procurement of munitions, the current level of munitions inventory is low. In an attempt to address this problem, the Department of Defense has requested funding for many munitions at the 

maximum production capacity. However, there are several munitions that are not funded at maximum capacity within the budget 

request. The long range anti-ship missile is a highly capable system that is critical for achieving the goals set forth in the National 

Defense Strategy. However, the Air Force budget request reduced 

the quantity of this critical munition for fiscal year 2019 from 15 

to 12. The Air Force intends to complete the procurement of this 

missile in fiscal year 2019 terminating the program with a total 

procurement of 47 missiles. However, the total requirement of the 

long range anti-ship missile for the Air Force is 50 missiles. 

37 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.2 million in line number 3 of MPAF for an additional three missiles. 

This increases procurement to the maximum capacity for the long 

range anti-ship missile and achieves the Air Force’s requirement of 

50 munitions. In addition, given the critical nature of this missile, 

the committee believes that 50 missiles is insufficient. The Air 

Force shall re-examine the total program requirement of the long 

range anti-ship missile in light of the advancing capabilities of 

near-peer adversaries. 

Small Diameter Bomb II 

The budget request included $100.9 million in line number 8 in 

Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for Small Diameter Bomb 

II. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 million in line 

number 8 in MPAF to realign unit price to $104,000 per weapon. 

Cargo and utility vehicles 

The budget request included $42.7 million in line number 4 for 

Cargo and Utility Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force 

(OPAF). 

As part of its strategic approach for addressing long-term strategic competition with China and Russia, the National Defense 

Strategy (NDS) calls for building a more lethal force, including investments in forward force maneuver, posture resilience, and resilient and agile logistics. According to the NDS, the objectives of 

these investments are to ensure that U.S. forces can ‘‘deploy, survive, operate, maneuver, and regenerate in all domains while under 

attack’’ and conduct ‘‘logistics sustainment while under persistent 

multi-domain attack.’’ Meeting these objectives will require a transition ‘‘from large, centralized, unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient, adaptive basing that include active and passive defenses’’ as well as an emphasis on ‘‘prepositioned forward 

stocks and munitions, strategic mobility assets,’’ and ‘‘distributed 

logistics and maintenance.’’ 

Consistent with the priorities set forth in the National Defense 

Strategy, the committee has fully supported resiliency efforts such 

as the prepositioning of European Contingency Air Operations Sets 

Deployable Airbase Systems (DABS), which is part of the European 

Deterrence Initiative, to complement and enhance the theater-wide 

response capability of the U.S. Air Force in Europe. 

However, the committee is concerned that the appropriate level 

of investment in similar resiliency efforts in the Indo-Pacific region 

has not materialized. U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific region 

remains heavily concentrated in Northeast Asia within range of 

China’s advanced arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, posing a 

significant risk to forward-stationed forces, to the ability of the 

Joint Force to execute the contingency plans of the Department of 

Defense, and to the credibility of U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific 

region. 

As a result, Admiral Harry Harris, Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Command (PACOM), identified force posture initiatives focused on 

resiliency as critical requirements in his letter to the committee of 

38 

February 22, 2018, concerning PACOM’s unfunded priority list and 

in his testimony to the committee on March 15, 2018. 

Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of seven 

DABS in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned forward in the 

PACOM area of responsibility in order to support the priorities of 

the National Defense Strategy and PACOM’s ‘‘resiliency’’ and ‘‘agile 

logistics’’ force posture initiatives as well as to enhance the credible 

combat power of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.2 million in line number 4 for Cargo and Utility Vehicles in OPAF. 

Security and tactical vehicles 

The budget request included $1.2 million in line number 6 for Security and Tactical Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force 

(OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in 

line number 6 for Security and Tactical Vehicles in OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Special purpose vehicles 

The budget request included $43.0 million in line number 7 for 

Special Purpose Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF). 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in line 

number 7 for Special Purpose Vehicles in OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Fire fighting/crash rescue vehicles 

The budget request included $23.3 million in line number 8 for 

Fire Fighting/Crash Rescue Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air 

Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in line number 8 for Fire Fighting/Crash Rescue Vehicles in 

OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Materials handling vehicles 

The budget request included $11.5 million in line number 9 for 

Materials Handling Vehicles in Other Procurement, Air Force 

(OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $19.8 million in 

line number 9 for Materials Handling Vehicles in OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

39 

Runway snow removal and cleaning equipment 

The budget request included $37.6 million in line number 10 for 

Runway Snow Removal and Cleaning Equipment in Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase 

of $2.8 million in line number 10 for Runway Snow Removal and 

Cleaning Equipment in OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Air Force physical security system 

The budget request included $159.3 million in line number 29 for 

Air Force Physical Security System in Other Procurement, Air 

Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in line number 29 for Air Force Physical Security System in 

OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Base maintenance and support equipment 

The budget request included $24.0 million in line number 56 for 

Base Maintenance and Support Equipment in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF). The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 

million in line number 56 for Base Maintenance and Support 

Equipment in OPAF. 

This increase would support the procurement of seven 

Deployable Airbase Systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility as further explained elsewhere in this report. 

Defense Wide 

Joint Service Provider 

The budget request included $107.2 million in line number 16 of 

Joint Service Provider, Defense Information Systems Agency. 

The committee notes that the budget request represents significant growth from prior years, and that the Department of Defense 

has set up a Reform Management Group specifically focused on reducing costs in the shared services information technology area. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5 million 

in line number 16 of Joint Service Provider, Defense Information 

Systems Agency. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aircraft carrier acquisition 

The Department of Defense has been able to achieve program efficiencies and cost-savings by using multiyear and block buy contracting with many weapons programs, to include shipbuilding. 

Section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, sets forth criteria for 

requesting and evaluating multiyear contracting proposals. AlVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
40 

though similar criteria for block buy authorities are not codified, 

the committee expects the Department to conduct rigorous analysis 

of proposals and provide that analysis to the Congress, and that 

the Department’s analysis will show a sound business case with 

substantial savings from committing the government to a longer 

term contract. 

Earlier this year, the Navy issued a request for proposal soliciting information on a potential block buy to acquire two Ford-class 

aircraft carriers (CVN–80 and CVN–81). The committee will review 

any information that the Navy provides related to such an approach as consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019 continues. 

Army M4 Carbine Forward Extended Rails 

In fiscal year 2018, the committee directed the Army to evaluate 

the need for upgrading the M4 Carbine legacy rail with the Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM) free-float extended rails. In response, the Army conducted a Solider Enhancement Program (SEP) 

evaluation and published the results in December 2017. The Limited User Evaluation (LUE) demonstrated promising results as 

compared to the Army’s legacy rail. While the committee supports 

the Army’s modernization strategy that calls for developing and 

fielding the Next Generation Squad Automatic Weapon (NGSAW) 

before developing and fielding the Next Generation Soldier Weapon 

(NGSW), the committee remains concerned that the Army is not 

planning to make modest upgrades to the M4 Carbine until the 

NGSAW and NGSW can be fielded. The committee is aware that 

soldier demand remains high for free-float, extended rails, and the 

Army has included funding for free-float extended rails from fiscal 

year 2021 through fiscal year 2023. The committee recommends 

the Army assess the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of accelerating 

the free-float extended rail program to retrofit the M4A1 rifle as 

part of a bridging strategy until the NGSAW and NGSW is fielded. 

Avoiding future work stoppages on EC–130H Compass Call 

Recapitalization 

The committee supports the Air Force’s efforts to recapitalize the 

aging EC–130H Compass Call fleet with the EC–37 type aircraft. 

The committee notes that before it can carry on with the transition 

plan, the Department of Defense must first comply with the related 

provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). While the 

committee notes that Department has submitted the certification 

required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91), delays in satisfying the requirement has 

led to a work stoppage on the program lasting at least six weeks. 

The committee is concerned about the potential for further work 

stoppages should the Secretary of the Air Force fail to make a 

timely determination that the EC–37B has a high likelihood of 

meeting combatant requirements, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to make 

41 

a timely determination for this requirement to avoid further program delays and cost overruns. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

not more than 60 days after the determination required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328) is made, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees on the Compass Call transition plan. This plan should 

include: 

(1) Courses of action to accelerate the recapitalization of the 

EC–130H fleet and Baseline 4 development and deployment for 

incoming EC–37 aircraft; 

(a) attendant timelines for each course of action; 

(b) cost estimates for each course of action; and 

(2) Recommended course of action and a plan to manage both 

fleets while supporting combatant commander requirements. 

B–2 modernization programs 

The committee is aware that, as noted in the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2018 budget request, ‘‘modern communications 

are key enablers for the B–2 in the anti-access/area denial 

battlespace and directly enhance lethality and force multiplication.’’ 

The committee notes that the Department did not request any 

funding in its fiscal year 2019 budget for the B–2 Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite Communications program and has not proposed an alternative secure communications 

solution to replace the current communications suite. 

The B–2 is currently the only stealth, long-range, penetrating 

bomber in the Air Force inventory. While the committee fully supports the recapitalization of the bomber fleet with at least 100 

next-generation B–21 bombers, the committee is concerned about 

capability and capacity gaps in the near-to-mid-term. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2019, on potential line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight 

communications upgrades for the B–2 that would provide the capabilities required for the B–2 to perform its critical strike missions 

in anti-access/area denial environments. 

Additionally, the report should consider solutions that would enable automated transfer of data to the B–2 and enable the aircraft 

to operate in a networked fashion with other elements of the longrange strike family of systems and other Air Force and Joint systems. The report should provide estimated modernization costs and 

timelines, consider opportunities to exploit capabilities developed 

for other programs, and take into account timelines for introduction 

of future systems that will provide similar capabilities. 

B–52 re-engining 

The committee recognizes the value and mission capabilities of 

the B–52 and supports platform modernization, specifically the effort to re-engine the fleet. The committee further recognizes the advances in engine performance and efficiency since the B–52’s current TF–33 engines were fielded. Accordingly, the committee supports efforts to accelerate fielding of the B–52 engine replacement 

42 

in order to maximize the benefits of increased efficiency over the 

B–52’s remaining life. 

Briefing on tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition plans 

The committee notes the decreased funding profile for the Army’s 

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle program (FMTV), the Palletized 

Load System Extended Service Program (PLS ESP), and the Heavy 

Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Extended Service Program 

(HEMTT ESP) over the future years defense program (FYDP). Predictable funding helps support minimum sustaining rates, and it 

avoids production breaks. In turn, this benefits Army readiness 

and modernization plans. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

brief the committee not later than September 30, 2018, on the 

Army’s procurement strategy for the FMTV program as well as the 

programs for HEMTT ESP and PLS ESP. The briefing should address how the proposed funding strategies are likely to impact the 

tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base, modernization and readiness goals, as well as surge capacity and future acquisition needs. 

CH–53K Heavy Lift Replacement 

The Navy’s MH–53E helicopter’s primary mission of providing 

airborne mine countermeasures is more important than ever, as 

the Navy faces an ever increasing number of threats across the 

maritime domain today, including anti-ship mines that are widespread, deadly, and difficult to locate. 

Since the committee has been concerned about maintaining mine 

countermeasures capability, the committee has recommended legislation that has continued to delay the retirements of the MCM–1 

mine countermeasures ships and the MH–53E helicopters until the 

Secretary of the Navy can identify a replacement capability and the 

necessary quantity of such systems that will meet all combatant 

commander mine countermeasures operational requirements. 

In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee in March 2018 on Navy and Marine 

Corps Aviation Programs, Vice Admiral Paul A. Grosklags, USN, 

stated, ‘‘The MH–53E will continue to perform its primary mission 

of airborne mine countermeasures as well as transport of cargo and 

personnel until it is replaced by the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).’’ 

With a reduction in the inventory objective for LCSs subsequent 

to the Navy’s announcement of the Force Structure Assessment 

recommending a 355-ship Navy, the Committee is concerned about 

a capability gap for mine countermeasures missions. The Committee requests the Navy submit a report not later than 90 days 

following the date of enactment of this Act on the feasibility and 

impact of recapitalizing the MH–53E fleet with a derivative of CH– 

53K that would address its use in airborne mine countermeasures 

missions and additional missions of conducting vertical onboard delivery and transporting personnel and cargo. The Committee recognizes that the CH–53K helicopter currently being built for the Marine Corps would be a logical option that might replace the capability that would be lost with the retirement of the Navy’s MH–53E 

fleet. 

43 

Continued F–15 C/D fleet modernization 

The committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force is undertaking 

a review of its aircraft force mix and structure, including the appropriate balance between 4th and 5th generation aircraft in the 

Active-Duty and reserve force, and that the Air Force expects to 

complete that review in August 2018. Therefore, the committee requests a briefing on the results of this review no later than September 1, 2018. 

The committee remains concerned that retiring entire fighter 

fleets, like the F–15C, without acquiring sufficient replacement aircraft, will drive the number of fighter aircraft below the levels required by the National Defense Strategy and below the floor established by Section 131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). Until the Air Force makes 

a final determination on the future of the F–15C/D fleet, the committee encourages the Air Force to continue investment in the modernization of the F–15 C/D, including the Active Electronically 

Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the Electronic Warning Warfare System (EWWS), and the Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS), which provides radar warning, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect 

and defeat surface and airborne threats in contested environments. 

The committee notes the Air Force has funded procurement of 

EPAWSS for its F–15E fleet and the necessary research and development to outfit the F–15C/D fleet. 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal technology development 

The committee notes that conventional Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units across the military services require upgraded 

equipment and technology enhancements, particularly for routine 

inspection and search activities. The committee believes that conventional Joint Service EOD units may benefit from rapid acquisition of EOD equipment, which have high-definition resolution and 

encrypted signals, among other upgraded capabilities. The committee understands that the Department of Defense canceled the 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Low Intensity Conflict program element which formerly developed and delivered Joint Service EOD 

advanced capabilities. The committee understands the Combating 

Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) will absorb this mission area within the Improvised Defeat Device and Explosive Countermeasures subgroup activity. 

The committee encourages the Director of the CTTSO to appropriately prioritize funding toward delivering advanced capabilities 

for conventional Joint-Service EOD units. 

F–35 modifications to Block 4 configuration 

To date, the committee notes neither the Air Force, the Navy, 

nor the Marine Corps has made a decision on what portion of the 

current fleet of F–35 aircraft will be brought up to a Block 4 configuration. 

Pursuant to section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for FY2017 (Public Law 114–328), the Secretary of Defense 

submitted a report to the congressional defense committees that 

contained the basic elements of an acquisition program baseline for 

44 

F–35 Follow-on Modernization (FOM) Block 4. Within the report, 

per aircraft cost estimates to retrofit Low Rate Initial Production 

(LRIP) Lots 2–8 aircraft to a Block 4 configuration are roughly 

$16.0 million, and per aircraft cost estimates to retrofit LRIP 9–10 

aircraft to Block 4 configuration are roughly $13.0 million. With 

more than 350 F–35s already procured that could require modification to Block 4 and the substantial cost to modify each aircraft to 

the most advanced configuration to provide the best capability to 

the warfighter, considerable affordability issues face the Department. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Defense 

to submit a report not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act, to identify which F–35 aircraft will be brought up to a 

Block 4 configuration and a timeline to complete modernization to 

Block 4. 

Ford-class sustainment and product support 

The committee notes that with the delivery of the USS Gerald 

R. Ford (CVN–78) in May 2017, sustainment and product support 

of this new class of aircraft carriers will be critical to mission effectiveness and operational availability. As the Ford-class program 

continues with testing and delivery of additional aircraft carriers, 

the committee believes life cycle sustainment planning must be 

properly funded to maintain hull, mechanical, electrical, and combat systems to the class’ 50-year service life. 

Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the budget request 

included no funding for maintaining Electromagnetic Aircraft 

Launch System software. The committee urges the Navy to plan for 

and appropriately fund sustainment and product support for Fordclass aircraft carriers, particularly systems critical to mission accomplishment. 

Guided missile frigate (FFG(X)) 

The committee applauds the Navy’s decision to procure a guided 

missile frigate (FFG(X)) with increased lethality, survivability, and 

endurance to meet the requirement for Small Surface Combatants 

within the most recent Navy Force Structure Assessment. While 

maintaining the Navy’s ‘‘high/low’’ mix of ships, the FFG(X) program greatly expands upon the capabilities of the Littoral Combat 

Ship program, returning many of the multi-mission warfighting attributes of Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates to the fleet and enabling operations in more contested environments. 

As the Navy refines FFG(X) concept designs with industry 

through fiscal year 2019, the committee continues to support a full 

and open competition with a single source detail design and construction award in fiscal year 2020. The committee also supports 

the Navy’s approach to commonality with existing Navy platforms, 

such as the Mark-41 Vertical Launch System and Enterprise Air 

Surveillance Radar, to reduce acquisition and sustainment costs. 

The committee encourages the Navy not to trade-off warfighting capability for other considerations. 

45 

HH–60 Combat Rescue Helicopter program 

Air Force combat rescue forces and assets are among the most 

deployed in the Department of Defense, and the heroic efforts of 

Air Force combat rescue airmen and women have resulted in over 

12,000 U.S. and allied lives saved, often under harrowing conditions. These demanding conditions have exacted a significant toll 

on this force, which has suffered significant combat losses of aircraft and personnel. The HH–60W Combat Rescue Helicopter 

(CRH) will replace the Air Force’s rapidly aging HH–60G 

Pavehawk helicopters to continue to perform these critical combat 

search and rescue and personnel recovery operations. The current 

Air Force program of record is for a minimum of 112 HH–60W 

CRH aircraft. The committee notes that numerous force structure 

studies have documented the need for between 141 (USAF CSAR– 

X Analysis of Alternatives) and 171 (Joint Forces Command Joint 

CSAR Study) aircraft to meet the rescue requirement demands. 

Therefore, the committee supports 112 as the minimum number of 

HH–60W CRH aircraft to support the validated requirement. 

Immersive virtual shipboard environment training 

The committee understands that the Navy has used game-based 

learning concepts to develop immersive virtual shipboard environment (IVSE) training for select watchstations aboard Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) since 2013. The committee further understands 

that this IVSE training may have contributed to faster qualifications and certification timelines, higher degrees of proficiency, and 

increased knowledge retention. The committee believes that other 

programs may be able to benefit from IVSE training. 

Accordingly, not later than November 1, 2018, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the congressional defense committees a report on IVSE training. This report shall include: (1) An assessment of IVSE training effectiveness compared 

to other training methods, including training benefits and lessons 

learned with IVSE training for LCS watchstations; (2) Future 

plans to incorporate game-based learning concepts and IVSE training to improve Navy and Marine Corps training for other naval 

platforms; (3) Other potential opportunities to incorporate gamebased learning concepts and IVSE training to improve Navy and 

Marine Corps training for naval platforms; and (4) Any other related matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 

Intermediary Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile 

The committee is concerned that the Army and Marine Corps 

have a capability gap in rocket and missile artillery, specifically an 

inability to engage targets at long ranges. The current inventory of 

mobile surface-to-surface missiles is not adequate to provide timely 

and accurate all-weather fire support in a Global Positioning System-denied environment to the joint force at ranges between 60 

and 499 kilometers. The committee notes that current initial operational capability for the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) program is not until 2025. The committee encourages collaboration between the Army and Marine Corps in finding an intermediary solution, which could be procured and fielded rapidly to provide U.S. 

46 

ground forces with the capability to engage targets beyond 200 kilometers until LRPF is operational. 

John Lewis-class fleet oiler multiyear procurement strategy 

The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 Navy shipbuilding plan 

includes seven John Lewis-class fleet oilers (T–AO) procured in fiscal years 2020 through 2024 at a cost of more than $3.6 billion. 

The committee further notes that the first ship of this class, USS 

John Lewis (T–AO–205), was awarded in fiscal year 2016 and will 

be delivered to the Navy in November 2020. 

The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost-estimating precision have been achieved to merit consideration of a 

multiyear procurement contract for John Lewis-class fleet oilers in 

future budget requests. 

The committee also notes recent shipbuilding multiyear procurement contract proposals projected savings in excess of 10 percent, 

as compared to annual procurement. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to consider a multiyear procurement strategy for John Lewis-class fleet 

oilers in future budget requests. 

Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and 

small arms 

The committee continues to support the Department’s efforts to 

decrease the weight of metal cartridge cases for ammunition in 

order to decrease the load burdens on the warfighter. Notable improvements include the potential for improved accuracy and consistency, increased individual mobility, decreased logistical resupply burdens, and reduced fuel consumption in operations. 

The committee is supportive of recent efforts at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division to test and qualify 0.50 caliber 

ammunition with polymer cartridge cases, which resulted in greater accuracy and more consistent rates of fire. 

Notably, the committee understands that efforts to lighten the 

weight of ammunition boxes with different materials can decrease 

weight by 33 percent, and when combined with the 25 to 35 percent weight reduction from polymer cartridge cases and other efforts, can reduce the weight of a 0.50 caliber ammunition box by 

roughly 75 percent. 

Additionally, the committee is encouraged by efforts to replace 

the metal of linked ammunition with polymer links, which can reduce weight by nine pounds per ammunition box, or 1,000 pounds 

per pallet. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department to continue and expand its efforts to explore polymer and other material 

weight reductions to other types of ammunition that could further 

reduce burdens on the warfighter. 

The committee continues to hold the view that any new ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, and accuracy and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, weapon function, lethality, storage, and transportation. 

47 

Maneuver Short Range Air Defense to counter Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems 

The committee is aware of the threat that small, agile, and low 

altitude Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) pose to military ground 

forces in the field. The committee understands that the Army is 

seeking a cross-domain, multi-dimensional solution that can address both the evolving UAS threat that is becoming more difficult 

to detect, identify, and defeat as well as the ability to provide 

short-range air defense against low flying UAS and cruise missiles 

for Army maneuver units. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Army to provide a briefing 

not later than September 30, 2018, identifying what requirements 

are similar to both the maneuver short-range air defense 

(MSHORAD) mission areas and the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft 

System (C–UAS) mission. Furthermore, the Army should identify 

what capabilities have been deployed, or are in development, that 

could be considered for use with Army ground mobile platforms to 

simultaneously address the C–UAS and M–SHORAD mission 

areas. 

Navy equipment for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker program 

The committee notes the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report on April 13, 2017, titled ‘‘Status of Coast 

Guard’s Heavy Polar Icebreaker Acquisition’’ (GAO–18–385R), 

which noted added space, weight, and power reservations for Navy 

equipment, such as a multi-mode radar and minor caliber weapons, 

were incorporated in the Department of Homeland Security-approved Operational Requirements Document for the Heavy Polar 

Icebreaker (HPIB) in January 2018. The committee is interested in 

better understanding the plan for Navy equipment to be incorporated on HPIBs. 

Accordingly, not later than December 1, 2018, the Secretary of 

the Navy, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Homeland 

Security for Management, shall submit to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives an 

unclassified report, which may include a classified annex, containing the following: (1) A detailed description of Navy equipment 

planned to be included in HPIBs, including Navy-Type, NavyOwned equipment; (2) The estimated space, weight, power, and 

cost for the equipment described in paragraph (1); (3) A description 

of Navy equipment under consideration to be included in HPIBs; 

(4) The estimated space, weight, power, and cost for the equipment 

described in paragraph (3); (5) An explanation of the capability of 

the equipment listed in paragraphs (1) and (3) to assist or augment 

the missions of the Combatant Commanders and the execution of 

the Department of Defense’s 2016 Arctic Strategy; and (6) A description of how the equipment listed in paragraphs (1) and (3) will 

meet a modular open systems approach to allow for future mission 

expansion. 

Navy small arms weapons training 

The committee understands that the Navy Expeditionary Combat 

Command (NECC) and the Navy Strategic Systems Program (SSP) 

have successfully demonstrated an innovative synthetic small arms 

48 

training approach. The committee further understands this approach provides realistic metrics-based skills for a variety of individual and crew-served training courses of instruction. The committee believes other Navy commands could benefit from similar 

innovative synthetic small arms training approaches. Therefore, 

the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to consider expanding innovative synthetic small arms training approaches beyond 

the NECC and Navy SSP. 

Preservation of F–117 aircraft with certified combat sorties 

The committee is aware that there are currently no F–117A aircraft with certified combat sorties on permanent display at either 

the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, 

Ohio or the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian 

Institution. Following its first flight in 1981, the F–117A ably 

served in combat during Operations Just Cause, Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom before being retired from front line service in 2007. The committee recognizes the 

F–117A’s unique importance in aviation history as the world’s first 

operational stealth aircraft and believes the Air Force should take 

appropriate steps to ensure future generations have the opportunity to experience first-hand combat-proven F–117As. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

the Air Force to make the first two retiring F–117A aircraft with 

documented combat sorties available to the National Museum of 

the United States Air Force and the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. The committee also notes the 

current presence at the National Museum of the United States Air 

Force of the existing prototype F–117 and encourages the Secretary 

of the Air Force to consider its transfer to an accredited affiliate 

of the National Museum of the United States Air Force or the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Presidential protection 

The committee recognizes the vital importance of the presidential 

protection mission. The airborne component is critical to ensuring 

safe airspace around the President. However, the committee is concerned with the inefficient use of national assets, such as the F– 

22, to accomplish the presidential protection mission. The committee believes this mission could be ably accomplished by a number of assets, including those from the Navy and Marine Corps, 

thereby relieving the stress on our most capable assets so they can 

focus on training to rebuild readiness and deter peer competitors. 

The committee understands that Air Combat Command is pursuing different options to provide better and more efficient presidential support. However, the committee believes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should examine how to provide 

presidential support most efficiently, using all available Department of Defense assets. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to reassess presidential support tasking and options 

for improving the efficiency of support with an emphasis on freeing 

the most capable aircraft assets to focus on training for the most 

49 

stressing operational requirements, in line with National Defense 

Strategy. 

Report on Air Force plan for fighter aircraft 

The committee understands that Air Combat Command is developing a Fighter Roadmap which will detail the Air Force’s plans for 

the fighter aircraft fleet. 

The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives on the Air Combat Command Fighter Roadmap. The report 

shall describe the Air Force’s plans for the fourth-generation fighter fleet and plans for converting fighter units to the F–35. To the 

extent feasible, the report should discuss the criteria to be used for 

future basing operations of F–35 aircraft. 

Report on Navy’s current and future state of long range 

strike capability 

The Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees not later than February 1st, 2019 

that describes the current and future state of the Navy’s long range 

strike strategy. This report should include a comprehensive description of the Navy’s plan to use all the various Navy munitions 

programs to meet operational requirements for land and maritime 

strike. The report should include discussion of the Next Generation 

Long-Range Attack Weapon (NGLAW), the Tomahawk and followon upgrades like the Maritime Strike Tomahawk and the Joint 

Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS), Conventional Prompt 

Strike, Over-the-Horizon missile, SM–6, the Long Range Anti-Ship 

Missile (LRASM), and any follow-on programs. The report should 

include how the Navy strategy will impact to the missile industrial 

base. 

Rifle Marksmanship Training 

The committee notes that the service branches utilize traditional 

M4/M16 marksman training practices in connection with both basic 

marksmanship instruction and in maintaining marksmanship proficiency of seasoned personnel. Current dry firing techniques, an 

essential rifle training element, require servicemembers to recharge their weapons after each trigger pull. The committee is 

aware that a new rifle dry fire device (RDFD) technology exists 

that simulates a live fire session. This technology has the ability 

to improve proper marksmanship fundamentals and weapon manipulation skills, which can lead to increased lethality and combat 

survival rates. During dry fire sessions RDFD replaces the lower 

receiver of the M4/M16, thereby allowing for simultaneous training 

with sights, lasers, lights, switches, and hand placement while diminishing the possibility of negligent discharge. Improved M4/M16 

marksmanship proficiency may be increased through RDFD, which 

in turn could lead to reduced costs associated with ammunition 

(live and blank), range time, and other expense items. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees by December 31, 2018, regarding 

the feasibility of utilizing RDFD technology for use with the M4/ 

M16 rifle and any next generation rifle platform. 

50 

San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport ship 

multiyear procurement strategy 

The committee notes the fiscal year 2019 Navy shipbuilding plan 

includes four San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport 

ships (LPD) procured in fiscal years 2020 through 2024 at a cost 

of approximately $7.0 billion. The committee further notes the 

Navy has identified LPD–30, which was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as the first Flight II LPD. 

The committee believes sufficient design maturity and cost-estimating precision have been achieved to merit consideration of a 

multiyear procurement contract for San Antonio-class Flight II amphibious transport ships, which will be procured in fiscal years 

2020 through 2024. The committee further believes the Navy 

should maintain a procurement rate of one Flight II LPD per year 

to meet Navy requirements faster, as well as increase industrial 

base efficiency and stability. 

The committee also notes recent shipbuilding multiyear procurement contract proposals projected savings in excess of 10 percent, 

as compared to annual procurements. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to utilize a multiyear procurement strategy for San Antonio-class Flight 

II amphibious transport ships in the President’s Budget request for 

fiscal year 2020. 

Small Unit Support Vehicle report 

The committee notes that the Small Unit Support Vehicle 

(SUSV) is the only vehicle that units can use to operate in deep 

snow conditions. The SUSV was designed to be air-droppable and 

able to operate in almost any condition. From a fleet of nearly 600 

vehicles, there are fewer than 100 working SUSVs left. The SUSV 

is no longer a program of record, and as a result many SUSVs in 

the fleet are being cannibalized to keep a small number of SUSVs 

running. 

Recently, the U.S. Army identified requirements for a Joint AllWeather/All-Terrain Support Vehicle (JAASV). Furthermore, the 

House and Senate reports accompanying H.R. 2810 (H. Rpt. 115– 

200) and S. 1519 (S. Rpt. 115–125) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) required the 

Department of Defense to conduct a Business Case Analysis to develop or procure a replacement for the SUSV. This analysis concluded that the replacement for the SUSV ‘‘will compete for 

resourcing during POM 20–24, United States Army Training and 

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will define the Total Army requirement for both the Active and Reserve components, and Headquarters, Department of the Army will consider pursuing a SUSV/ 

JAASV using Rapid Acquisition Authorities to quickly procure a 

Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS), Non Developmental Item solution.’’ 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense 

to conduct a Department-wide operational needs review for the 

JAASV and subsequently consider granting rapid acquisition authorities needed to begin quick procurement of a COTS solution to 

this capability shortfall. 

51 

Stryker A1 Production 

The committee is concerned about the Army’s funding strategy 

for Stryker A1 production. The Stryker A1 configuration includes 

the Double-V Hull (DVH) upgrade and Engineering Change Proposal 1 to provide enhanced mobility and power. 

The fiscal year 2019 Army budget request included $21.9 million 

for Stryker upgrades to convert three flat bottom vehicles into the 

Double V Hull (DVH) A1 configuration. However, the committee is 

concerned that this does not resource the Stryker program sufficiently given the National Defense Strategy and long-term plans 

for the Stryker vehicle fleet. Therefore, the committee included a 

$149.0 million zero-sum movement of funds within the Stryker program, authorizing a total of $171.0 million. 

The committee understands that the Army made a decision at a 

Requirements Oversight Council meeting to upgrade the entire 

Stryker legacy fleet to the Stryker A1 configuration. This decision 

was made after the Army submitted the fiscal year 2019 budget request. The Army has a total of 9 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, 

and over 2,700 Stryker vehicles do not have both the DVH and engineering upgrades. In addition, the Army intends to use the 

Stryker A1 chassis for the Maneuver Short Range Air Defense capability which will likely require additional Stryker vehicles. 

Therefore, as the Army considers funding levels for future budget 

requests, the committee encourages the Army to provide the necessary resources to support the decision to modernize the Stryker 

fleet to the A1 configuration, which may include modernizing at 

least one half of a brigade per year. Finally, the committee urges 

the Army to evaluate the potential cost savings and schedule acceleration that could be achieved by a multi-year procurement strategy. 

Swarm attack defense of Navy ships 

The committee recognizes the growing threat of small boat 

swarm attacks, in which an enemy seeks to overwhelm a ship’s layered defenses by attacking in large numbers from different directions. The committee is concerned that some Navy vessels may lack 

sufficient self-defense capability against such threats. For example, 

as noted in the fiscal year 2017 annual report by the Office of the 

Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, the Expeditionary Sea 

Base (T–ESB) ‘‘self-defense capability is limited to crew-served 

weapons only. The T–ESB was designed to operate in a non-hostile 

environment with low/negligible threats to the ship. However, mine 

countermeasure operations may require the ship to operate close to 

littoral threat areas. The lack of self-defense capability renders the 

ship dependent upon other naval combatants and joint forces for 

protection in the littoral operating environment.’’ 

In order to ensure ships are sufficiently protected against swarm 

raids and other small boat attacks, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to ensure adequate self-defense capability requirements are in place for the mission sets and scenarios such 

ships may be called upon to undertake. 

(53) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this 

Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Codification and reauthorization of Defense Research and 

Development Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify the 

Rapid Innovation Program and would clarify elements of the program, including funding levels and policy surrounding broad agency announcements. 

The committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program was established to help increase the number of non-traditional vendors in 

technology and research and to help those innovators bridge the 

gap between basic research and commercialization. The program 

has demonstrated benefits to meeting Department of Defense 

(DOD) needs and should become a permanent facet of the DOD’s 

toolkit for helping to improve acquisition of technologies and support U.S. small business innovators. 

Procedures for rapid reaction to emerging technology (sec. 

212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe a procedure for the designation 

and development of urgently needed emerging technology research. 

The committee established the position of Under Secretary for 

Research and Engineering (USD (R&E)) within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), 

with the intention that this role would drive rapid innovation 

across science and technology within the Department. However, the 

committee recognizes that streamlined processes may need to be 

established to ensure that the Department is able to keep pace 

with the current speed of technological change. Therefore, the committee directs the USD (R&E) to establish a streamlined process 

that would allow the Department to identify areas of rapid technological change and indicate the need for immediate investment. 

This process could be similar to the Joint Urgent Operational Need 

process, established based on a similar provision in section 806 of 

54 

the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (Public Law 107–314). 

Activities on identification and development of enhanced 

personal protective equipment against blast injury (sec. 

213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require joint 

activities to be conducted in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 by the Secretary of the Army and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, in collaboration with academia, to determine the most effective personal equipment to protect against injuries caused by blasts 

in training and combat with $10.0 million authorized to be available to carry out joint activities. 

The committee notes that the Director of the Department of Defense (DoD) Blast Injury Research Program Coordinating Office established pursuant to Section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) has a mission to ensure that effective mechanisms exist for focusing and coordinating DoD blast injury research efforts and collaboration with 

research expertise outside DoD. The committee recommends that 

Secretary of the Army, in his role as Executive Agent for Medical 

Research for Prevention, Mitigation, and Treatment of Blast Injuries ensure that the Office coordinates in the execution of activities 

mandated and authorized by this section. 

Human factors modeling and simulation activities (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Army, through the Army Research Institute or the Army Futures 

Command as determined appropriate, to establish human factors 

modeling and simulation activities. The military departments within the Department of Defense (DOD) seek ways to provide 

warfighters and civilians with personalized assessment, education, 

and training tools; to identify and implement effective ways to 

interface and team warfighters and civilians with machines; to use 

intelligent, adaptive augmentation to enhance decision-making; 

and to develop techniques, technologies, and practices to mitigate 

critical stressors that impede warfighter and civilian protection, 

sustainment, and performance. 

The committee is aware of the significant possibilities that 

human factors modeling and simulation (M&S) will provide to the 

DOD when coupled with applied research in human simulation informed by physics-based survivability analysis models. Benefits of 

this type of M&S include enhancing warfighter performance and 

protection as well as improving efficiency and effectiveness in the 

development and procurement of personal protective equipment 

and weapons while realizing significant cost savings. Human factors M&S can rapidly assess many variables to quickly provide insights to optimize and integrate warfighter-based systems, including predicting injury, mobility, and survivability. These vital analytics contribute to determining the likelihood of mission success, 

as well as ways to expand training capabilities. The integration of 

physics-based human simulation, artificial intelligence, and clinical 

knowledge into systems has the potential to rapidly transform mission readiness and success. 

55 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to establish activities related to human factors modeling and simulation to maximize the effectiveness of the warfighter in each service, in concert 

with the warfighter’s respective equipment and weapons systems. 

Such activities would bring together academia, industry, DOD 

science and technology, and DOD Program Executive Offices to accelerate research and development that enhances capabilities for 

human performance, human-systems integration, and training for 

the warfighter. 

Expansion of mission areas supported by mechanisms for 

expedited access to technical talent and expertise at 

academic institutions (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

mission areas included in the authority granted in section 217 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to space, infrastructure resilience, and photonics. 

The statute that this provision would extend gave the Secretary 

of Defense the authority to establish one or more multi-institution 

task order contracts, consortia, cooperative agreements, or other arrangements with universities that do not have similar existing constructs to facilitate expedited access to university technical expertise in support of Department of Defense mission areas. The extension to new mission areas would allow for more connections between universities and the Department of Defense in priority technologies. 

The committee originally authorized this effort because of its concern that the Department of Defense was not optimally positioned 

to capitalize on all cross-functional aspects of emerging technologies that serve multiple purposes. The committee continues to 

believe a more streamlined construct must be available for expedited access to combine technical expertise and research efforts, reduce costs, and eliminate duplication of effort. 

The committee notes and supports the ongoing basic research activities that are funded by the Department of Defense at universities and government labs, which have led to the development of 

most of the operational capabilities used by the Nation’s military 

today, ranging from stealth to precision munitions to battlefield 

medicine, aircraft sustainment, and the Internet. The committee 

intends the authority in the recommended provision to supplement 

those basic research funding authorities and activities, and it expects the Department to issue guidelines as appropriate that reflect 

a streamlined, efficient process for components to have increased 

access to the technical expertise resident in the Nation’s universities to help address the technical, engineering, and management 

challenges facing the Department. 

In using the mechanisms established in the recommended provision, the committee urges the Department to expand the number 

of individual institutions actively pursuing and demonstrating technical expertise in the disciplines that directly support the efforts of 

the Department of Defense. 

56 

Advanced manufacturing activities (sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to 

jointly establish activities aimed at demonstrating advanced manufacturing techniques and capabilities in depot-level activities or 

military arsenal facilities. Broadly, the committee urges the Department to consider these activities as part of more holistic plans 

to benefit from advanced manufacturing within its own organizations and the commercial sector. 

The committee recognizes the transformative potential of additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, to the industrial supply chain 

and across disciplines. The ability to use new materials in new 

ways or to develop new manufacturing processes has the potential 

to transform how the Department does business and significantly 

increase system readiness. The establishment of new Defense Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, including one focused on additive 

manufacturing, as well as the growing prevalence of 3-D printers 

at tactical levels indicate that the Department sees that potential 

as well. 

The committee recognizes the extensive and growing reach of additive manufacturing within the commercial and defense sectors. 

However, additive manufacturing could also greatly improve the 

defense industrial base’s ability to respond to military readiness demands when original equipment manufacturers are unable to meet 

or to fabricate obsolete parts that are no longer manufactured. Substantial room remains across the force to add more capacity for this 

type of capability, both to repair out-of-date equipment and to 

speed repair in order to meet urgent operational requirements. 

Therefore, this provision would require the establishment of not 

less than three activities to demonstrate these techniques and capabilities. These activities would include efforts to develop military 

and quality assurance standards as quickly as possible and leverage current manufacturing institutes to conduct research in the 

validation of quality standards for additive manufactured parts. To 

complete these activities, the Department may enter into cooperative agreements and partnerships, based on several specific characteristics. Ultimately, the committee urges the Department to further integrate advanced manufacturing capabilities and capacity. 

National security innovation activities (sec. 217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to establish activities to develop interaction between the Department of Defense and the commercial technology industry and academia with 

the goal of encouraging private investment in specific hardware 

technologies of interest to future defense technology needs with 

unique national security applications with $150.0 million authorized to be available to carry out such activities. 

Under this provision, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering may transfer such activities to a non-profit 

entity to carry out the program if the Under Secretary can establish that a non-profit entity with sufficient private sector investment and personnel with the sufficient technical and management 

57 

expertise can attract sufficient private sector investment, has personnel with sufficient technical and management expertise, and 

has identified relevant technologies and systems for potential investment in order to carry out the specific activities authorized. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRL) to establish partnership intermediary agreements (PIA) with not-for-profit 

entities or state and local government organizations to enable research and technology development cooperation to promote innovation to support defense missions. A PIA is an agreement, contract, 

or memorandum of understanding, between the government and an 

intermediary organization, such as a State or local governmental 

agency or nonprofit entity. A Partnership Intermediary performs 

services for the government labs that increase the likelihood of success in the conduct of cooperative or joint activities with small business firms, institutions of higher education, and industry. The PIA 

facilitates a wide range of licensing and other technology transfer 

initiatives. 

The committee notes that military capabilities are supported by 

universities and industry in the maturation of technologies and 

production of materiel solutions. Much of the innovation comes 

from partnership with small businesses and universities. The commercial market driving the development of technologies is very dynamic. Military capability solutions are unique and often do not 

have a regular commercial market audience. The STRLs carry out 

significant basic and developmental research, much of it in collaboration with academia and the private sector. The government-funded research efforts to address military threats are critical to reducing technology development risk, and, if successful, can attract the 

necessary private sector partners and support to lead to manufacturing and commercialization or production of defense systems. 

However, traditional federal parameters are not sufficiently agile 

and flexible to allow military laboratories to respond in a timely 

fashion to the market-driven needs of its private sector partners, 

thus discouraging the partnerships that can often accelerate efforts 

to meet these vital military needs. 

The committee believes that working through and in collaboration with partnership intermediaries provides the flexible supporting mechanism to effectively and efficiently interact with industry and academic partners to support better sharing of intellectual property, technical expertise, and research and testing facilities between interested public and private sector partners. 

Limitation on use of funds for Surface Navy Laser Weapon 

System (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funds to 

exceed a procurement quantity of one Surface Navy Laser Weapon 

System (SNLWS), also known as the High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS), per fiscal year, 

unless the Secretary of the Navy submits a report to the congressional defense committees. 

58 

The committee understands that Navy officials designated 

SNLWS/HELIOS as the first rapid prototyping, experimentation 

and demonstration (RPED) project. The committee further notes 

that, on January 26, 2018, the Navy awarded a $150.0 million contract for SNLWS Increment 1, HELIOS systems. Under this contract, the contractor will develop, manufacture, and deliver two test 

units in fiscal year 2020. The committee further understands this 

contract includes options for up to 14 additional production units, 

which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative contract value to 

$942.8 million. 

If the cumulative contract value is reached, expenditures under 

this program may exceed the Acquisition Category (ACAT) Ithresholds for research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E), including significant production. However, the committee 

has not yet received sufficient information on the requirements, acquisition plan, test plan, funding profile, and cost estimate to enable appropriate oversight. 

The committee supports accelerated acquisition approaches, such 

as RPED. However, accelerated approaches, especially those that 

may expend significant resources and enter into production, such 

as SNLWS/HELIOS, must adhere to sound acquisition principles. 

Accordingly, this provision would direct the Secretary of the Navy 

to certify how SNLWS is incorporating those principles prior to exceeding the procurement rate of one SNLWS/HELIOS per year, including: a requirements document, acquisition plan, test plan, 

funding profile, and cost estimate. The committee encourages the 

Navy to tailor the certification materials to the extent provided for 

by existing flexibilities in acquisition law or regulation. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

list of entities with whom the Secretary of Defense, acting through 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, may 

coordinate and partner in order to support national security innovation and entrepreneurial education. 

Limitation on funding for Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2 

(sec. 221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit all of 

the funds authorized for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.2 from 

being obligated or expended until the Secretary of Defense provides 

the required report identified in the section titled Report on the 

Highest-priority roles and missions of the Department of Defense 

and the Armed Forces. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

defense quantum information science and technology research and 

development program aimed at ensuring that the U.S. military is 

able to most effectively leverage the technological capabilities enable by quantum science and technology to meet future military 

59 

missions. The effort would be led by the Undersecretary for Defense for Research and Engineering. The committee notes that research and development activities in quantum science shows the 

promise of: (1) Producing computers that will exceed the capabilities of all known traditional computers; (2) Enabling communication systems that enhance cryptography and the speed of communications; and (3) Developing measurement devices and sensors 

with heretofore unachievable precision and sensitivity. All of these 

will have significant impacts in the commercial sector, as well as 

in military systems. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

been investing in research and development in quantum information science and technology for many years, and has recently begun 

to ramp up those investments. The committee has also increased 

funding for these efforts in this bill. Private industry has significantly increased their investments in quantum science, in an attempt to pursue commercial applications. The committee’s provision is intended to provide a strategic framework for DOD activities in this area, to help ensure U.S. superiority in the field, especially with respect to national security missions and systems. 

The provision calls for coordination of quantum science research 

activities within the Department as well as encouraging robust 

interagency collaboration. For example, the committee notes that 

both the Department of Energy national laboratories and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology have significant capability in quantum science which can 

contribute to DOD research and development efforts. It further 

calls for developing procedures for the effective transition of quantum science-enabled capabilities into deployed systems, and to support efforts to establish robust industrial and technical capabilities 

in the government and private sector, including facilities an infrastructure needed to sustain quantum research. 

To focus the research portfolio, the provision recommends the establishment of a set of technical challenges that are consistent with 

expert analysis of the state of quantum research and its ability to 

enable advanced military capabilities, such as in data analysis, 

cryptography, and sensing. Due to concerns with the diffusion of 

quantum science research knowledge and intellectual property to 

peer competitors, the provision directs the Undersecretary to develop classification guidance and data management strategies for 

the appropriate protection on information. The committee notes 

that the Undersecretary must strike an appropriate balance between protecting national security secrets, and ensuring that the 

government, industry, and academic community can engage in 

open research and innovation as is necessary to advance the field. 

Joint directed energy test activities (sec. 223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the coordination and enhancement of directed energy test activities. The 

committee notes that next generation directed energy weapon systems are being developed by the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

industry but the Nation’s infrastructure for testing those weapon 

systems is antiquated and in need of modernization. 

60 

The Department established the Nation’s first High Energy 

Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF) in 1975, but the technology 

has seen significant advancements over the course of four decades. 

As directed energy weapon systems mature, the need to validate 

their performance becomes increasingly important. The workload 

and number of directed energy demonstrations and exercises have 

increased significantly since 1975 and the projected workload for 

fiscal years 2018–2022 for HELSTF is large and growing, and has 

expanded to include high-powered microwave testing. Given these 

trends, this provision would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to focus on management and 

acceleration of directed energy testing activities. Elsewhere in this 

Act, the committee recommends additional funding to initiate the 

modernization of directed energy infrastructure and test activities. 

The committee applauds the Air Force for proposing plans for 

joint testing activities, which could potentially focus government 

expertise and reduce duplication of effort across the DOD, thus 

supporting more rapid and cost effective testing and fielding of directed energy weapon systems. The committee believes that doing 

so could also allow for broad, standardized collection and evaluation of data to establish test references and support acquisition and 

policy decisions in a more reliable fashion. 

Requirement for establishment of arrangements for expedited access to technical talent and expertise at academic institutions to support Department of Defense 

missions (sec. 224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

establishment of arrangements for expedited access to talent and 

expertise at academic institutions to support Department of Defense missions. 

Authority for Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to 

conduct research relating to high powered microwave 

capabilities (sec. 225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

purview of the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office to include 

research relating to high powered microwave capabilities. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD 

(R&E)) to focus and coordinate Department of Defense (DOD) efforts on artificial intelligence. Focus in these areas should encompass coordination among the Services and the development of a 

comprehensive strategy for the DOD. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Report on comparative capabilities of adversaries in key 

technology areas (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in coordination with relVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
61 

evant partners, to complete a report that directly compares United 

States capabilities in near-term emerging technology (e.g., 

hypersonic weapons, directed energy) and longer-term emerging 

technology (e.g., artificial intelligence, quantum information 

sciences) with that of U.S. adversaries. This report should include 

relative spending information, evaluations of quality and quantity 

of research, test infrastructure and workforce, evaluations of technical progress, timelines for operational deployment, and an assessment of adversary intent or willingness to use the specified technology. 

Report on active protection systems for armored combat 

and tactical vehicles (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the 

technologies related to active protection systems for armored combat and tactical vehicles no later than 60 days after the enactment 

of this Act. 

The committee notes that the Army has conducted detailed testing of three active protection systems on the M1A2 Abrams, M2A3 

Bradley, and STRYKER. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army to report on the effectiveness of the systems 

tested, plans for future testing, proposals for future development, 

and a timeline for fielding. The Secretary should include plans for 

how the Army will incorporate active protection systems into new 

armored combat and tactical vehicle designs such as Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), 

and Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). 

Next Generation Combat Vehicle (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the development of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) no later 

than 60 days after the enactment of this bill into law. 

The committee is concerned that there is insufficient analysis to 

support the requirements for the NGCV, including consideration of 

threats and terrain, and that the requirements may not be relevant 

to the National Defense Strategy (NDS). Furthermore, the committee views this combat vehicle as a replacement to the aging 

Bradley fighting vehicle and believes it should be optimized for 

close combat maneuver, agile exploitation and transport of mechanized infantry as part of an armored, combined arms team. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army 

to use all available acquisition authorities, to the fullest extent possible, to build a ground combat vehicle prototype with the potential 

to be rapidly produced and fielded. The committee expects the 

Army to exploit modern component technologies that can dramatically change basic combat vehicle design to improve lethality, protection, mobility, range, and sustainment. Such technologies could 

include vehicle active protection systems, reactive armor, composite 

armor, thermal signature reduction, noise reduction, fuel cell propulsion, opposed-piston engines, advanced transmissions, suspenVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
62 

sion, power generation, voltage management, 3rd generation forward looking infrared sights, integrated hostile fire detection, 

manned-unmanned teaming, automatic loaders, extended range top 

attack munitions, and cannons. The committee also encourages the 

Secretary to pursue an open system architecture to allow for future 

development. Finally, this prototype should possess sufficient 

power, design and other capabilities to enable the manned vehicle 

to control unmanned vehicles, when applicable. 

The committee directs the Secretary to fully enable the Army’s 

Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center 

(TARDEC) to develop an NGCV prototype based on their work to 

date. To support this effort, the committee believes TARDEC 

should be granted needed funds and authorities to develop a separate prototyping effort. The committee would require the amounts 

authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2019 for the Department of Defense by section 201 and available for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, PE 63645A, for NGCV, not more 

than 50 percent may be obligated or expended until the Secretary 

of the Army submits to congressional defense committees the report. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD 

(R&E)) to conduct a review of the defense research and engineering 

enterprise. 

Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) established the position of USD 

(R&E) in order to serve as Chief Technology Officer for the Department of Defense and to oversee the research and engineering enterprise. The committee believes that this role should be charged with 

solving enterprise-wide challenges facing the Department of Defense and so tasks the position with recommending solutions for 

improving the enterprise’s success in a changing environment. 

The technological world has changed significantly over the past 

decades. Commercial investment in technology has increased exponentially, the U.S. government’s challenges with recruiting and retaining a qualified technical workforce have grown, the diffusion of 

technology around the world has occurred rapidly, and the rate at 

which technology within the Department of Defense moves from 

discovery to deployment in operational systems has plunged. Given 

these changes, the committee believes that the Department would 

benefit from a strategic review of its research and engineering enterprise, including the military department science and technology 

organizations, the Department of Defense laboratories, the test 

ranges, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, the Strategic Capabilities Office, and the Small Business Innovation Research program. 

The Defense Science Board (DSB) concluded a thorough and insightful review of this enterprise in January 2017 and found that 

the labs continue to fulfill vital missions on behalf of the warfighter 

but that they must also adapt their mission to continue to serve 

and ready themselves for evolving needs. The report includes a 

63 

clear dictate that ‘‘OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] 

must actively champion and support the labs and Congress must 

continue working with the Department to simplify the regulatory 

environment in which the labs operate.’’ 

The committee sees this provision as formally endorsing the 

DSB’s recommendation for attention to the challenges facing the 

laboratories, but, given the expansive purview of the USD (R&E), 

recommends that the scope of this study widen. The committee 

urges the USD (R&E) to identify any current impediments to effectiveness and recommend, where necessary, legislative actions for 

fixes. The committee is eager to use this report to ensure the relevance of defense research and engineering in a changing world. 

Modification of reports on mechanisms to provide funds to 

defense laboratories for research and development of 

technologies for military missions (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

existing reporting requirement for funding provided to defense laboratories under existing authorities to a continuous requirement as 

opposed to an annual report. The committee remains committed to 

the use of these authorities but believes that the reporting will be 

more impactful if continuously collected and disseminated across a 

broader audience, including senior officials, academia, and industry. 

Report on Mobile Protected Firepower and Future Vertical 

Lift (sec. 236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the requirements for Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) and Future 

Vertical Lift (FVL) no later than 60 days after the enactment of 

this Act. 

In light of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), the committee 

is concerned the Army is making significant investments in advance weapons systems that may not be suitable for a high intensity, combined arms battlefield. Therefore, the committee would 

like to understand how MPF and FVL would improve offensive 

overmatch against a peer adversary and how these systems could 

survive the effects of anti-armor and anti-aircraft networks established within anti-access, area-denial defenses. In addition, if the 

purpose for MPF and FVL is to support light infantry brigades, the 

committee requests additional details of these requirements. Finally, the report would detail the total number of systems needed, 

how these systems will be logistically supported within light formations, and plans to integrate active protection systems into their 

designs. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics to use nontraditional technologies, such as additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and other software-intensive capabilities, to increase the availability of aircraft and decrease backVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
64 

logs for the production of spare parts for such aircraft. This provision would also allow the Assistant Secretary to advance the qualification and integration of additive manufacturing into the Air 

Force supply chain, reduce supply chain risk, and define workforce 

development requirements and training for personnel who implement and support additive manufacturing for the Air Force. The 

committee notes that the provision would also authorize $42.8 million as denoted in the funding tables accompanying this Act for 

such purposes. 

Review of guidance on blast exposure during training (sec. 

238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review the firing limits of heavy weapons 

during training exercises and provide a report no later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act reviewing the cognitive effects of 

said blast exposure. 

List of technologies and manufacturing capabilities critical 

to Armed Forces (sec. 239) 

The committee recognizes that maintaining technological superiority is critical to U.S. military and foreign policy strategy. Each 

year, the Department of Defense spends billions of dollars to develop and acquire advanced technologies in order to maintain U.S. 

superiority. While the sale or transfer of these technologies is permitted and facilitated to allies, partners, and other foreign parties 

in order to promote U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic interests, these technologies can also be targets for theft, espionage, reverse engineering, or illegal export. In an increasingly 

globalized and competition-defined world, safeguarding critical 

technologies from malfeasance and use by our adversaries or competitors is of strategic significance to U.S. national security. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has replaced 

the Militarily Critical Technologies Program with other processes 

to determine which technologies are critical and how they should 

be protected to ensure consistency with U.S. interests. The committee also believes that the outcomes from the current processes 

for determining critical technologies may be underutilized and may 

fail in their purpose of informing export decisions if not properly 

utilized or properly integrated with other stakeholder agencies. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a list of militarily critical technologies and manufacturing capabilities. The primary emphasis of this list should be given to: (1) 

Research, development, design, and manufacturing expertise; (2) 

Research, development, design, and manufacturing expertise equipment and unique facilities; and (3) Goods and services associated 

with or enabled by sophisticated research, development, operation, 

application, manufacturing, or maintenance expertise, which are 

not possessed by countries to which exports are controlled and 

which, if exported or otherwise transferred, would permit a significant advance in the military capabilities of any such country. Upon 

development no later than December 31, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to use the list to guide Department 

65 

recommendations in any interagency determinations on exercising 

export licensing, technology transfer, or foreign investment. 

Report on requiring access to digital technical data in future acquisitions of combat, combat service, and combat 

support systems (sec. 240) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit a report regarding access to digital technical data, to include that which is necessary to 

support the production of three-dimensional printed parts. 

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

This provision requires the Secretary of the Army to submit to 

the congressional defense committees, not later than February 15, 

2019, a strategy to competitively procure a new transmission for 

the Bradley Fighting Vehicle family of vehicles, to include the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle and the Paladin Integrated Management artillery system. Additionally, no funds may be appropriated 

for a Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement transmission until 30 

days after the Secretary of the Army submits its strategy to the 

congressional defense committees. 

Independent assessment of electronic warfare plans and 

programs (sec. 242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the scientific 

advisory group ‘‘JASON’’ to produce an independent assessment of: 

U.S. electronic warfare strategies, programs, order of battle, and 

doctrine and adversary strategies, programs, order of battle, doctrine, including recommendations for improvement. The committee 

recognizes that the United States has a significant comparative 

military disadvantage against our peer competitors in aspects of 

the electronic warfare mission and in the conduct of joint electromagnetic spectrum operations. 

The provision would require an independent assessment of both 

U.S. and adversary electronic warfare plans and programs. This 

should include an assessment of the electronic warfare strategies, 

programs, resources and doctrine of the U.S. and its potential adversaries. For the U.S. it should also include an assessment of 

what capabilities non-Department of Defense entities, to include allies and partners, can provide. Finally the assessment should include recommendations for improvements. 

The provision would require that the JASON scientific advisory 

group conduct the assessment but allows for the Secretary to enter 

into an agreement with an alternate assessment group. The assessment shall be completed with a report of findings and recommendations to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2019. 

66 

Budget Items 

Army 

Army defense research sciences 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $276.9 million was for PE 61102A Defense Research Sciences, Army for fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-term national security needs. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused on 

technical areas of interest to Department of Defense missions lay 

the foundation upon which other technology development and new 

defense systems are built. Basic research activities fund efforts at 

universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These 

investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

The committee also notes that this particular program builds 

fundamental scientific knowledge contributing to the sustainment 

of U.S. Army scientific and technological superiority in land 

warfighting capability and to solving military problems related to 

long-term national security needs. It also investigates new concepts 

and technologies for the Army’s future force and provides the 

means to exploit scientific breakthroughs and avoid technological 

surprises. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million, for a total of $284.4 million, in RDT&E Army, PE 61102A, for 

basic research. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

Army quantum information sciences 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $276.9 million was for PE 61102A Defense Research Sciences, Army, for fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-term national security needs. 

The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with near-peer 

adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become increasingly 

critical. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $281.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 61102A, 

for research on quantum information sciences. 

University and industry research centers 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $92.1 million 

was for PE 61104A University and Industry Research Centers, 

Army. 

The committee notes that this basic research program fosters 

university and industry-based research to provide a scientific foundation for enabling technologies for future force capabilities. In parVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
67 

ticular, this program funds collaborative technology alliances, 

which leverage large investments by the commercial sector in basic 

research areas that are of great importance to the Army. The committee is specifically encouraged by the efforts associated with the 

Army Research Laboratory’s Open Campus initiative. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $97.1 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 61104A. The 

committee directs that these funds be awarded through well-established and competitive processes. 

Sensors and electronic survivability 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $32.3 million 

was for PE 62120A Defense Research Sciences, Army, for sensors 

and electronic survivability. 

The committee notes that this program accelerates the Army’s 

work to enhance industrial base capabilities for improving weapon 

system performance, speed, fuel efficiency, and force protection. 

Such innovations ultimately aim to reduce part assemblies, decrease lifecycle costs, and enable point-of need part production. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $37.3 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 62120A, to 

support tool and material process development. 

Aviation technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $64.8 million 

was for PE 62211A aviation technology. 

The committee notes that several of the programs contained 

within this program element, such as rotors and vehicle management technology, engine and drives technologies, and platform design and structures technologies, involve research activities that 

may overlap with aviation research being performed elsewhere in 

the Department of Defense. Given this potential for redundant 

work, the committee believes that the level of funds requested for 

this program element is not entirely justified. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $59.9 million, in RDT&E Army, PE 62211A, in 

mission systems and engine and drives coordination, and recommends that the Army look for opportunities to increase collaboration and coordination with other Services and research programs 

on aviation technology. 

Weapons and munitions technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $40.4 million 

was for PE 62624A weapons and munitions technology. 

The Nation is being challenged to maintain dominance across all 

domains as our adversaries have continued to develop and advance 

their military capabilities that threaten the U.S. homeland. To address these priorities, the Army Armament Research, Development 

and Engineering Center continues to invest in additive manufacturing technology to rapidly design, prototype, and manufacture 

critical novel printed armaments components. By advancing printVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
68 

ed electronics, energetics, and power sources, size and weight of 

munition components can be reduced, freeing up valuable internal 

space for increased lethality payloads, support range, and precision 

guidance to maximize weapon systems’ capabilities while reducing 

operations and cost. With collaborations across the Services, the 

long-term goal of this effort is to develop the ability to fully print 

munitions on a single production line in an ammunition plant, increasing the U.S. Armed Forces’ readiness. This effort will also 

demonstrate the ability to print replacement parts, customizable 

grenades that will provide both fragmentation and blast, embedded 

electronics in clothing, and antennae on soldiers’ helmets. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 mil- lion, for a total of $42.9 million, in RDT&E Army, PE 62624A, for 

advanced warheads technology. 

Human factors engineering technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $24.1 million 

was for PE 62716A human factors engineering technology. 

Human factors engineering technology seeks ways to provide 

warfighters with personalized assessment, education, and training 

tools; to identify and implement effective ways to interface and 

team warfighters with machines; to use intelligent, adaptive augmentation to enhance decision making; and to develop techniques, 

technologies, and practices to mitigate critical stressors that impede warfighter protection, sustainment, and performance. The 

committee is aware of the significant possibilities that human factors modeling and simulation will provide to the DOD when coupled with applied research in human simulation that utilizes physics-based survivability analysis models. These vital analytics contribute to determining the likelihood of mission success as well as 

ways to expand training capabilities. The integration of physicsbased human simulation, artificial intelligence, and clinical knowledge into the Department’s warfighter systems has the potential to 

rapidly transform mission readiness and success. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $26.6 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 62716A, for 

human factors engineering. 

Command, Control, and Communications technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $55.0 million 

was for PE 62782A Command, Control, and Communications technology. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue 

supporting the development and advancement of technologies that 

address: the increasing gaps in position, navigation, and timing architectural and technological development; Global Positioning System vulnerabilities; and adversary navigation warfare capabilities. 

However, the committee is concerned that the activities described 

within this program element are duplicative across the Services. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $50.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 62782A command, control and communications technology. 

69 

Aviation advanced technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $124.9 million was for PE 63003A aviation advanced technology. 

The committee notes that, of this amount, the total requested for 

platform design and structures system represents a more than doubling of this project’s budget from past fiscal years. While the committee supports the continued air vehicle demonstration of critical 

new technologies, the committee is concerned that the large increase in funds is not justified by the project plans. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $119.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63003A, 

for platform design and structures systems. 

Extended Range Cannon Artillery gun 

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $102.7 million was for PE 63004A Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million, for a 

total of $122.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63004A, for the acceleration of the development of the Extended Range Cannon Artillery 

gun. 

Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $119.7 million was for PE 63005A combat vehicle and automotive advanced 

technology. 

The committee understands that Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC) spends 

hundreds of millions of dollars annually on improving the performance of vehicles. Fuel reduction is a critical objective to reduce fuel 

consumption and reduce the requirements for large convoys to deliver fuel to deployed forces. The committee believes that TARDEC 

should fund an effort to demonstrate leap-ahead technology for fuel 

reduction. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 mil- lion, for a total of $122.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63005A, 

for modular scalable powertrain. 

Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle Prototype 

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $119.7 million was for PE 63005A Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced 

Technology. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

expedite critical capabilities through rapid prototyping to meet the 

needs of combatant commanders. The committee believes that the 

Army must rapidly develop a prototype next generation combat vehicle to replace the aging Bradley fighting vehicle. The committee 

notes that the Army’s Tank Automotive Research Development and 

Engineering Center (TARDEC) has done significant market surveys of the world’s best modern component technologies, fabricated 

70 

a prototype hull, and produced a virtual design concept. The committee believes that the TARDEC should be given all needed funding and authorities to continue this prototyping effort with technology developers, operational users, testers, and commercial sector 

partners. 

The committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million, for a 

total of $189.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63005A, for the Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology to prototype the 

next generation combat vehicle. 

High performance computing modernization program 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $183.3 million was for PE 63461A high performance computing modernization 

program. 

The committee notes that this program is a Department-wide 

asset used by all of the Services and combat support agencies. Additional funding for this program would increase the research and 

development budget toward the level of that appropriated in fiscal 

year 2018. The committee notes that research and development initiatives under this program support Defense supercomputing resource centers, the Defense Research and Engineering Network, 

and software applications. The U.S. government has spent over 

$7.0 billion to develop and implement this unique, world-class national computing asset for the DOD. It delivers approximately 3.2 

billion processor hours and over 3.5 quadrillion floating point operations per second, available and configured to support the Department’s most challenging problems and analysis of massive and 

complex datasets. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $188.3 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63461A, 

for high performance computing. 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funds for 

minor Science and Technology military construction 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $25.8 million 

was for PE 63734A military engineering advanced technology. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), the committee urged the Department of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for science and 

technology facilities, as well as those used for test and evaluation. 

Unfortunately, these projects generally fall victim to low 

prioritization, despite their major value to the Department’s mission. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million, for a total of $33.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63734A, for 

minor military construction projects for science- and technology-related facilities. The committee adds these funds in order to fund 

the request for Target Assembly Facility (92422) and Climactic 

Chamber Building (92344), both minor military construction 

projects with science and technology uses. The committee strongly 

encourages the Army to ensure coordination regarding the approVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
71 

priate planning and design occurs so that these projects are executable. 

Military engineering advanced technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $25.8 million 

was for PE 63734A military engineering advanced technology. 

The committee notes that centrifuge-based research has allowed 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to test small-scale physical models of bridges, piers, and other installations and resulted in engineering improvements to new facilities. Additional funding is justified to expand the existing centrifuge capacity, as this research accelerates engineering advances with more efficiency and at lower 

cost. 

Further, the committee recognizes the transformative potential of 

additive manufacturing, or 3–D printing, to the industrial supply 

chain and across disciplines. The ability to use new materials in 

new ways or to develop new manufacturing processes has the potential to transform how the Department does business and significantly increase warfighter system readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $30.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63734A, for 

centrifuge research and additive manufacturing. 

Position, navigation and timing technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $34.9 million 

was for PE 63772A advanced tactical computer science and sensor 

technology. 

Near-peer adversaries, such as the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China, have taken note of American dependence 

on Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) technology and have 

heavily invested in navigation warfare technologies that can congest, degrade, jam, spoof, and eliminate Global Positioning Systems 

(GPS). Advancing assured PNT technologies for operation in a 

GPS-denied or -degraded environment are essential to the 

warfighter’s ability to maintain overmatch in a multi-domain battlefield. This program element addresses the critical technological 

gaps that U.S. and coalition operations face in hostile, GPS-denied 

environments and will mature PNT situational awareness analysis 

tools that deliver PNT integrity monitoring, dissemination of timerelated data, as well as hardware and software solutions to augment PNT for mounted and dismounted platforms. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $37.4 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63772A, for 

PNT research and development. 

Command, Control, and Communication advanced technology 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $52.4 million 

was for PE 63794A Command, Control, and Communication (C3) 

advanced technology. 

72 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to continue 

supporting the development and advancement of technologies that 

address: the increasing gaps in position, navigation, and timing architectural and technological development; Global Positioning System vulnerabilities; and adversary navigation warfare capabilities. 

However, the committee is concerned that the activities described 

within this program element are duplicative across the Services. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $47.4 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63794A. 

Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional Munition 

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which, $42.0 million was for PE 63639A tank and medium caliber ammunition. 

The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million, for a 

total of $56.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63639A, for the test 

and evaluation of the M999 Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional 

Munition to verify its compliance with the Department’s policy on 

cluster munition. This request was included on the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities Radio Frequency Exploitation–Electronic Intelligence 

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $35.7 million 

was for PE 63766A Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities 

Radio Frequency Exploitation (TRFE)–Electronic Intelligence 

(ELINT). 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to develop and 

experiment with prototypes that can be developed into suitable, 

survivable, and effective intelligence systems for support of the 

Army Field Artillery. The committee is aware of the plan to modernize the Army Field Artillery. The committee acknowledges that 

the development and fielding of Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) 

is the Army’s first priority for modernization. The committee, however, is concerned that Army Intelligence is not actively developing 

a capability to provide effective, suitable, and survivable intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for the 

Field Artillery. This ISR must be able to detect, locate, classify, 

identify, and confirm long-range targets. This is particularly important for engagement by long-range cannon and rocket batteries for 

attacking enemy targets deep within enemy defensive sectors and 

support zones. In light of requirements as detailed in the National 

Defense Strategy, the Army must rapidly field effective, suitable, 

and survivable ISR capabilities to support the Army Field Artillery. 

The committee encourages the Secretary to exploit existing hardware and specialized software to support experimentation and testing. The Secretary should seek to transition as rapidly as possible 

to a program of record for an accelerated production decision. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million, for a total of $43.7 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 63766A, for 

TRFE–ELINT. 

73 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $51.0 million 

was for PE 64319A Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 

2-Intercept (IFPC). 

While the Army continues to deprioritize IFPC, critical capabilities, such as cruise missile defense of fixed stations, are nonexistent. In too many respects, the Army Missile Defense (AMD) 

forces fielded today fall considerably short of being an effective 

foundation for the kind of conflict envisioned by the National Defense Strategy, and, while air and missile threats have become 

more capable and complex, U.S. AMD capabilities have undergone 

only a modest modernization. 

In order to accelerate and prioritize the IFPC program, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million, for a total of $81.0 

million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 64319A. 

Mobile Protected Firepower 

The budget request included $10.2 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $393.6 million was for PE 64645A Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF). 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

modernize and to be better prepared to execute the National Defense Strategy. The Army has made clear its modernization priorities in order to rapidly build capabilities needed for combined 

arms maneuver against a peer adversary. The committee is concerned that the MPF is not suited for a high-intensity battlefield. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million, for a 

total of $318.6 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 64645A, for MPF. 

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

The committee is concerned with the Army’s repeated decision to 

ignore the articulated requirement for a vehicle laser warning system as part of the Abrams IB and the Bradley 2B ECP improvements. The laser warning system provides critical protection and 

enhances current operational capabilities utilized by forward deployed units. Any additional delay in fielding will only continue to 

undermine effectiveness and prolong an increased risk to the 

Army’s ground combat vehicles. The Committee recommends that 

the Army realign its procurement plans and integrate the laser 

warning system onto the M1 Abrams Tank and any other forward 

deploying ground combat vehicles. The Committee encourages the 

Army to concentrate on survivability and incorporate a laser warning sensor suite system to adequately address the growing threat 

of anti-tank guided missiles and laser beam riding guidance systems. The Committee believes that by focusing on mature, fieldtested protective technology, the active protection system (APS) 

will provide a balanced framework that both increases lethality 

and protection for the warfighter. As the Army transitions APS 

onto ground combat vehicles through the Vehicle Protection System, it will require the incorporation of a laser warning sensor 

suite onto the system. 

74 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to Army Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, line 117 

for Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems–EMD, and an additional 

decrease of $9.0 million, for a total decrease of $324.0 million, from 

Army Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, line 

number 6 for the Bradley Program MOD. 

Army contract writing system 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $41.9 million 

was for PE 65047A Army Contract Writing System. 

The committee is concerned about duplication among the Services in contract writing systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $41.9 mil- lion, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 65047A. 

Major T&E investment 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $91.8 million 

was for PE 64759A major test and evaluation investment. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), this committee urged the Department of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for science and 

technology facilities, as well as those used for test and evaluation. 

Unfortunately, these projects generally fall victim to low 

prioritization, despite their major value to the Department’s mission. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 mil- lion, for a total of $116.8 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 64759A, 

for minor military construction projects for science- and technologyrelated facilities. The committee adds these funds in order to fund 

the request for Armament Test Ops and Analysis Facility (58467), 

Guana Peak Site (63191), EMI RDT&E (87871), HPM Building 

21245 (60556), Lift and Tiedown Test Facility Modernization 

(91080), Guided Missile Building (85286), and Braking and Maneuver Facility (60832), all minor military construction projects with 

science and technology uses. 

The committee strongly encourages the Army to ensure that coordination regarding the appropriate planning and design occurs so 

that these projects are executable. 

High energy laser testing 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $306.0 million was for PE 65601A Army Test Ranges and Facilities. 

The committee notes that next generation weapon systems are 

being developed by the Department of Defense and its defense industry partners but the Nation’s infrastructure for testing those 

weapon systems is antiquated and in need of modernization. As directed energy weapon systems mature, the need to validate their 

performance becomes increasingly important. The committee notes 

that the workload and number of directed energy demonstrations 

and exercises have increased significantly since 1975 and the projected workload for fiscal years 2018 through 2022 is significant. 

75 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $321.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 65601A, 

to accelerate the testing of those weapon systems. 

Navy 

Navy basic research initiatives 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $119.4 million was for PE 61103N university research initiatives. 

Basic research is critical to the development of next generation 

naval capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $124.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 61103N, for 

basic research. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

Navy defense research sciences 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $458.7 million was for PE 61153N defense research sciences. 

The committee notes that basic research activities serve to help 

train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work 

on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $463.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 61153N, for 

basic research. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

Navy quantum information sciences 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $458.7 million was for PE 61153N defense research sciences. 

The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with near-peer 

adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become increasingly 

critical. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $463.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 61153N, for 

quantum information sciences. 

Directed energy applied research 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $14.6 million 

was for PE 62114N power projection applied research. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and the potential 

that it holds for future operational capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $17.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 62114N, 

power projection applied research. 

76 

Warfighter sustainment applied research 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $56.1 million 

was for PE 62236N warfighter sustainment applied research. 

The request includes significant growth in Office of Naval Research Global (ONR Global). Though ONR Global’s mission is undoubtedly important, the committee urges additional resourcing to 

go directly toward National Defense Strategy-aligned priorities as 

opposed to significantly growing this organization. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5 mil- lion, for a total of $48.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 62236N. 

Undersea warfare applied research 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $58.0 million 

was for PE 62747N undersea warfare applied research. 

The committee continues to recognize the importance of building 

strong partnerships between Navy research labs, academia, and 

shipyards that build our nation’s submarines. The committee encourages the Navy to closely coordinate this effort with its industrial base partners to ensure that funded research projects are relevant to specific engineering and manufacturing needs, as well as 

defined systems capabilities. Partnerships with academia should 

focus on well-defined submarine and autonomous undersea vehicle 

research, needs, accelerated technology transition projects, and 

workforce development to help ensure a sustainable industrial 

base. The committee encourages projects that aim to reduce manufacturing costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 mil- lion, for a total of $78.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 62747N, undersea warfare applied research. 

Innovative Naval prototypes—applied research 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $159.7 million was for PE 62792N applied research in Innovative Naval Prototypes. 

The committee notes that this program element is tasked with 

developing leap ahead technologies in game-changing areas such as 

cyber, directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and autonomous 

systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $164.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 62792N, for 

directed energy, electronic warfare, and unmanned and autonomous systems. 

USMC advanced technology demonstration 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $150.2 million was for PE 63640M United States Marine Corps Advanced 

Technology Demonstration. 

The committee notes that, of this amount, a significant increase 

is requested for the futures directorate, an organization tasked 

with identifying future challenges and opportunities, developing 

77 

warfighting concepts, and comprehensively exploring options to inform the combat development process to meet the challenges of the 

future operating environment. The committee is concerned that 

such an increase is unjustified and cannot be absorbed through the 

work identified in the project description. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $140.2 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63640M, 

for unjustified growth. 

Innovative Naval prototypes—advanced technology development 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $161.8 million was for PE 63801N advanced technology development in Innovative Naval Prototypes. 

The committee notes that this program element is tasked with 

developing leap ahead technologies in game-changing areas such as 

cyber, directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and autonomous 

systems. The committee notes that undersea warfare capabilities 

are a key component of Navy modernization plans. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 mil- lion, for a total of $166.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63801N, for 

directed energy, electronic warfare, and unmanned and autonomous systems. 

Advanced combat systems technology 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $59.7 million 

was for PE 63382N advanced combat systems technology. 

The committee is encouraged by the projects taken on within the 

advanced combat systems program element. The Low-Cost UAV 

Swarming Technology (LOCUST) program involves building a 

launcher that could send dozens of drones out of a tube in a swarm 

designed to ‘‘autonomously overwhelm an adversary.’’ The Heterogeneous Collaborative Unmanned Systems (HCUS) demonstration 

is part of the Effector Grid category for small autonomous systems. 

HCUS provides autonomous, tactical monitoring of an adversary’s 

port-sized littoral area for an extended period of time with capability to apply limited offensive effects on-demand. The committee 

urges the Navy to continue funding these projects and others in 

this program element. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $62.2 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63382N, for 

LOCUST, HCUS, and Innovative Naval Prototype Transition. 

Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $62.7 million 

was for PE 63502N surface and shallow water mine countermeasures. 

The committee notes that, on April 17, 2018, the Navy awarded 

an $83.3 million contract for the design, test, and deployment of 

the Barracuda mine neutralization system. If all options are exercised, the committee understands that this contract includes opVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
78 

tions to design and deliver 750 Barracuda Engineering Development Models (EDMs) with a cumulative contract value of $362.7 

million. 

The committee further notes that the Barracuda Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review (CDR) are scheduled for 

fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 respectively. The committee 

believes that the award of Barracuda EDMs should be delayed 

until an approved CDR drawing is achieved. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $26.0 mil- lion, for a total of $36.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63502N, for 

surface and shallow water mine countermeasures. 

Advanced submarine system development 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $109.0 million was for PE 63561N advanced submarine system development. 

The committee understands advanced submarine propulsion development could be accelerated, if additional funds were available. 

The committee believes accelerating and expanding the use of composite materials, where appropriate, could enable significant 

warfighting and acquisition advantages in the construction of submarines. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 mil- lion, for a total of $112.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63561N, for 

advanced submarine system development. 

Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform acceleration 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $89.4 million 

was for PE 63563N ship concept advanced design. The committee notes $18.0 million of this request is in project 

4037 for Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission Platform (CHAMP) 

industry studies, which will lead to a domestic common-hull design 

to replace aging mission-specific sealift and auxiliary designs. The 

committee understands that the CHAMP is a key element of sealift 

and auxiliary ship recapitalization. The committee further notes a 

March 2018 report to Congress stated, ‘‘CHAMP procurement could 

accelerate to as early as fiscal year 2023 with funding and congressional support.’’ The committee further notes that the Navy has 

stated that $18.0 million would be necessary to support such acceleration. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million, for a total of $107.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63563N, for 

ship concept advanced design. 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $103.6 million was for PE 63596N Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission modules. 

The committee believes activities supporting the LCS mine countermeasures mission module should be consolidated in this program element or in a new LCS mine countermeasures mission 

module program element. 

79 

Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of: $7.6 million from PE 64127N (surface mine countermeasures), $10.1 million from PE 64126N (littoral airborne mine countermeasures), and 

$16.7 million from PE 64028N (small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles). 

Additionally, the committee notes the USS Jackson (LCS–6) surface-to-surface missile module test has been deferred and recommends a decrease of $5.0 million. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $29.4 million, for a total of $133.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N, for 

LCS mission modules. 

Land attack technology 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $15.5 million 

was for PE 63795N land attack technology. 

The committee notes a program delay and no future years funding for the Gun Launched Guided Projectile, despite plans to publish a Request for Proposals in fiscal year 2019 for Engineering, 

Manufacturing, and Development. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.5 million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 63795N, for land attack technology. 

F/A–18 infrared search and track 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $108.7 million was for PE 64014N F/A–18 infrared search and track (IRST). 

The committee understands that additional funding could reduce 

risk in operational testing of IRST Block II by restoring lab and 

flight tests that were deferred due to prior budget reductions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million, for a total of $132.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64014N, for 

F/A–18 IRST Block II testing. 

Small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $16.7 million 

was for PE 64028N small and medium unmanned undersea vehicles. 

The committee notes that this program element only includes activities related to the Knifefish unmanned underwater vehicle, 

which is part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission module. The committee believes activities related 

to LCS mine countermeasures mission modules should be consolidated in PE 63596N (LCS mission modules) or in a new LCS mine 

countermeasures mission module program element. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.7 million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64028N, for small and 

medium unmanned undersea vehicles and a transfer of the $16.7 

million decrease to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N. 

80 

Large unmanned undersea vehicles 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $92.6 million 

was for PE 64031N large unmanned underwater vehicles. The committee understands that the $21.2 million is early-toneed based on prior year congressional funding reductions. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $21.2 mil- lion, for a total of $71.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64031N, for 

large unmanned underwater vehicles. 

Littoral airborne mine countermeasures 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $17.6 million 

was for PE 64126N littoral airborne mine countermeasures. 

The committee notes this program element includes $10.1 million 

in funds related to the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and 

Analysis airborne mine countermeasures system, which is part of 

the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission 

module. The committee believes activities related to LCS mine 

countermeasures mission modules should be consolidated in PE 

63596N (LCS mission modules) or in a new LCS mine countermeasures mission module program element. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.1 mil- lion, for a total of $7.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64126N, for 

littoral airborne mine countermeasures and a transfer of this $10.1 

million to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N. 

Surface mine countermeasures 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $18.2 million 

was for PE 64127N surface mine countermeasures. 

The committee notes that this program element includes $7.6 

million in funds related to the AN/AQS–20 sonar system, which is 

part of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures mission module. The committee believes activities related to LCS mine 

countermeasures mission modules should be consolidated in PE 

63596N (LCS mission modules) or in a new LCS mine countermeasures mission module program element. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.6 mil- lion, for a total of $10.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64127N, surface mine countermeasures and a transfer of the $7.6 million decrease to RDT&E, Navy, PE 63596N. 

AV–B Aircraft—Engineering Development 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $46.3 million 

was for PE 64214M AV–8B Aircraft—Engineering Development. 

The committee notes that the Marine Corps plans to divest of the 

AV–8B by 2027 and replace it with the F–35B and that this transition is well underway. The committee also notes that, of the $46.3 

million requested in this budget line, $13.9 million is for engine 

safety and reliability improvements and engineering change proposals. The remaining $32.3 million requested is for weapons and 

avionics upgrades. The AV–8 platform was first fielded in the MaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
81 

rine Corps in the early 1970s, and the committee has concerns 

about continued investment in an aircraft that has limited utility 

against a peer adversary. Rather than continue to invest in a platform that, even in upgraded form, will not add meaningful capability to the joint force, the committee believes that these funds 

would be better used elsewhere to support modernization initiatives across the force. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.2 million, for a total of $30.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64214M, for 

AV–8B Aircraft—Engineering Development. 

Physiological episode safety improvements 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $21.0 million 

was for PE 64264N for Air Crew Systems Development. 

The committee is concerned that U.S. military aircraft currently 

do not possess the ability to monitor the physiological status of aircrew and autonomously act to protect them in case of hypoxia or 

other physiological events. In response to physiological episodes in 

Navy aircraft, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

has recommended an advanced safety sensor that would monitor 

and record the composition of gases inhaled and exhaled by the 

pilot. These types of sensors have been developed by the Air Force 

Research Laboratory, and the committee believes that the Department of Defense should explore fielding them to all relevant Department aircraft. The committee believes that further integration 

of these breathing sensors into a fully autonomous life support system, which monitors the pilot’s physiological state and automatically reacts to prevent mishaps, should be pursued. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $31.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64264N, Air 

Crew Systems Development, for physiological episode safety improvements. 

EA–18G cognitive electronic warfare 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $147.4 million was for PE 64269N EA–18 Squadrons. 

The committee recognizes the growing importance of electronic 

warfare and its critical role in any conflict with a peer or near-peer 

adversary. The committee believes that it is imperative that the 

United States maintains relevant and effective electronic warfare 

capabilities. Moving forward, the ability to sense and react to the 

electromagnetic spectrum will be key to success in any conflict with 

a peer competitor. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $95.3 million, for a total of $242.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64269N, for 

Reactive Electronic Attack Measures. This item was included on 

the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

82 

EA–18G offensive airborne electronic attack special mission 

pod 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $89.8 million 

was for PE 64270N Electronic Warfare Development. 

The committee recognizes the growing importance of electronic 

warfare and its critical role in any conflict with a peer or near-peer 

adversary. The EA–18G special mission pod is intended to provide 

a special purpose mission pod to address emergent PACOM operational gaps. The committee believes that it is imperative that the 

United States maintains relevant and effective electronic warfare 

capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $31.6 million, for a total of $121.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64270N, for 

EA–18G offensive airborne electronic attack pod. This item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

LPD–17 class systems integration 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $0.9 million 

was for PE 64311N LPD–17 class systems integration. 

The committee understands that San Antonio-class (LPD–17) 

amphibious ships were designed to accommodate a 16-cell Mark-41 

Vertical Launch System (VLS), which would increase lethality 

through employment of a variety of munitions, including Tomahawk, Enhanced Sea Sparrow, and Standard missiles. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy and Commandant of the Marine Corps testified on April 19, 2018, before the 

Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, that they supported 

installation of VLS on Flight II LPD–17 class ships. 

The committee further understands that approximately $50.0 

million would be required to complete the non-recurring engineering necessary to incorporate VLS on LPD–17 class ships. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million, for a total of $50.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64311N, for 

LPD–17 class systems integration. 

SM–6 Block 1B 21 inch rocket motor 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $165.9 million was for PE 64366N Standard Missile improvements. 

The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million, for a 

total of $146.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64366, for the 21 inch 

rocket motor. This is on the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded 

priorities list. 

Amphibious assault ship acceleration 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $60.1 million 

was for PE 64567N ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation. 

The committee remains concerned with the Navy procurement 

profile for large deck amphibious assault ships, which includes a 

83 

span of 7 years until the next large deck amphibious assault ship 

(LHA–9) is procured in 2024. 

The committee notes that efficiencies could be gained by reducing 

this span, which could enable a steadier workforce with an increased learning curve, material and equipment suppliers on more 

reliable and fixed delivery contracts, and a more effective continuous improvement schedule. 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate procurement of LHA–9 to not later than 2021 and understands that 

$6.0 million is required for planning to support a fiscal year 2021 

detailed design and construction award for LHA–9. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million, for a total of $66.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 64567N, for 

ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation. 

Electronic Procurement System 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $268.6 million was for PE 65013N Information Technology Development, including $26.3 million for Electronic Procurement System. 

The committee is concerned about duplication among the Services in contract writing systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $26.3 million, for a total of $242.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 65013N. 

Navy Information Technology Systems Development 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $268.6 million was for PE 65013N Information Technology Development, including $63.8 million for Navy Personnel and Pay (NP2). 

The committee is concerned about the lengthy timeline for delivery of capability to users. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to adopt modern software development practices 

that deliver capabilities to users in shorter increments and 

timelines. Best practices for incremental development call for delivering functional capabilities to the end-user at intervals of 6 

months or less. The acquisition strategy includes a software development approach using a commercial off-the-shelf solution. However, NP2 does not plan to deliver any capability to users until fiscal year 2020 with the next increment of capability planned for 2 

years later. The committee feels that the use of modern, commercial acquisition practices is especially important to support critical 

management and personnel and pay activities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $63.8 million, for a total of $204.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 65013N. 

Management, technical, and international support 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $87.6 million 

was for PE 65853N management, technical, and international support. 

The committee notes several projects contain insufficient budget 

justification and unjustified cost growth. 

84 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.0 mil- lion, for a total of $78.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 65853N, for 

management, technical, and international support. 

Maritime Strike Tomahawk 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $282.4 million was for PE 24229N for Tomahawk missiles and the Tomahawk 

Mission Planning Center. The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million, for a 

total of $291.1 million, in PE 24229N of RDT&E, Navy, to restore 

full funding and to maintain fiscal year 2021 initial operational capability. 

Integrated surveillance system 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $37.0 million 

was for PE 24311N integrated surveillance system. 

The committee notes that, since fiscal year 2015, the Navy has 

utilized Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems (TRAPS) 

in anti-submarine warfare missions. The committee understands 

that these deployable systems have performed satisfactorily and 

comprise a critical element of the Navy’s overall integrated undersea surveillance system. The committee is concerned capability or 

capacity gaps will be created if additional TRAPS units are not procured in fiscal year 2019. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 mil- lion, for a total of $72.0 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 24311N, for 

integrated surveillance system. 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile extended range 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $120.8 million was for PE 25601N for HARM Improvements, of which $99.2 

million is for development of the extended range (ER) version of 

the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). 

The committee notes that the Navy plans to create an extended 

range version of the AARGM Block I, with no modification to the 

missile system except for the rocket motor. The AARGM Block I is 

currently in production. The committee also notes that the fiscal 

year 2017 annual report of the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation (DOT&E) recently stated that the AARGM Block I was 

‘‘not adequate to support an evaluation of operational effectiveness 

or survivability.’’ Furthermore, the report stated that the AARGM 

Block I ‘‘provides limited employment capability against advanced 

threat surface-to-air radar systems.’’ 

While longer range is an important factor when competing 

against near-peer adversaries, the committee believes that the 

Navy should not extend the range of the AARGM until the missile 

seeker is effective against ‘‘advanced threat surface-to-air radar 

systems.’’ The committee supports the effort to design an anti-radiation missile that is relevant against a peer adversary. However, 

given DOT&E’s findings on the suitability of AARGM Block I, the 

committee believes that simply extending the range will not be sufVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
85 

ficient and recommends that the Navy find a more comprehensive 

solution to this problem. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $99.2 million, for a total of $21.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 25601N, in 

order to pause development of the AARGM ER pending a Navy review of requirements. 

Tactical Targeting Network Technology 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $104.7 million was for PE 25604N for Tactical Data Links. 

The committee recognizes the increasing importance of data links 

to our warfighting concepts of operations and combat effectiveness. 

The Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link supports the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air and 

Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare. The committee believes that it is 

imperative that the Department accelerate the fielding of technologies, such as TTNT, that enhance our capabilities in any conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million, for a total of $116.7 million, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 25604N, to 

accelerate the TTNT capability. This item was included on the 

Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

F/A–18 E/F engine enhancements 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $121.8 million was for PE 25633N for Aviation Improvements. 

The committee recognizes that the F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet will 

remain a critical element of the carrier air wing for the foreseeable 

future. The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to maintain the 

Super Hornet’s relevance and effectiveness. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $136.8 million in RDT&E, Navy, PE 25633N, to 

accelerate the design and development of F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet 

engine enhancements to address range, speed, efficiency, and survivability improvements. This item was included on the Chief of 

Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

The budget request included $18.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $22.6 million 

was for PE 26629M Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV). 

The committee understands that the Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

(AAV) Product Improvement Program (PIP)/Survivability Upgrade 

Program (SUP) will produce marginal improvements in the vehicle’s overall survivability and that few of the proposed enhancements address threats the vehicle may face in conflict against a 

peer adversary. The AAV is a decades-old platform with legacy amphibious and combat capabilities that do not meet the needs of 

modern Marine amphibious forcible entry operations. Rather than 

continue to invest in a vehicle that, even in upgraded form, will not 

provide adequate maneuverability, survivability, or ship-to-shore 

performance, the committee believes these funds would be better 

86 

used elsewhere to support modernization initiatives across the 

force. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.6 million, for a total of $0.0, in RDT&E, Navy, PE 26629M, for the Amphibious Assault Vehicle. 

Air Force 

Air Force defense research sciences 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $384.3 

million was for PE 61102F defense research sciences. 

The committee notes that basic research investments serve to 

help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may 

work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and 

academia. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $389.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 61102F 

for basic research. The committee directs that these funds be 

awarded through well-established and competitive processes. 

Air Force quantum information sciences 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $384.3 

million was for PE 61102F defense research sciences. 

The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In the National Defense Strategy’s environment of competition with near-peer adversaries, such 

cutting-edge technology will become increasingly critical. The committee urges the inclusion of research on the underlying mathematics of quantum enabled systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $389.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 61102F, 

for quantum information sciences. 

High energy laser research initiatives 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $14.5 

million was for PE 61108F high energy laser research initiatives. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and the potential 

that it holds for future operational capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $17.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 61108F. 

Materials 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $125.3 

million was for PE 62102F materials. 

The committee supports the Air Force’s efforts to improve structural metallic materials used in high priority aerospace and defense missions. The use of high energy synchrotron x-rays is helping design engineers to better understand which materials are best 

87 

suited for military performance requirements and to develop optimal and efficient manufacturing processes for these novel materials. It is critical that Air Force and other Department of Defense 

scientists engage in hands-on experiential learning to train more 

materials scientists and engineers in these capabilities, including 

the creation and implementation of high-fidelity simulations and 

advanced data-science methods to support development of next-generation weapons systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million, for a total of $129.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62102F, 

in support of the Air Force’s efforts to improve materials used in 

high priority aerospace and defense missions. 

Aerospace vehicle technologies 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $130.5 

million was for PE 62201F aerospace vehicle technologies. 

The committee notes that hypersonic technologies are a key component of the National Defense Strategy but is concerned that investment has been insufficient to support test infrastructure, advanced testing techniques, and the testing workforce. Without 

these investments, it is unlikely that hypersonic systems will 

achieve operational status. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $135.5 million, in RDT&E, Army, PE 62201F, for 

high-speed systems technology, including hypersonic vehicle structures. 

Affordable responsive modular rocket 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $190.9 

million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion. 

The committee notes the Air Force’s participation in the initiative ‘‘Rocket Propulsion for the 21st Century’’ (RP–21), which 

serves as a focal point for the rocket propulsion development community. The committee applauds the interagency involvement in 

this effort. Within this effort, the exploration of next generation liquid rocket engine concepts focused on modularity are particularly 

valuable. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million, for a total of $205.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62203F, 

for the affordable responsive modular rocket. 

Multi-mode propulsion applied research 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $190.9 

million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion. 

One of the efforts within ‘‘Rocket Propulsion for the 21st Century’’ (RP–21) is directed at developing technologies for high thrust 

chemical and electric thrusters to utilize a common propellant and 

tank. The committee urges the Air Force to accelerate these efforts 

for flight demonstration. 

88 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 mil- lion, for a total of $193.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62203F, 

for multi-mode propulsion. 

Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $190.9 

million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion. 

The committee notes the importance, within the Air Force’s rocket propulsion efforts, of continuous flow processing technology in 

order to reduce the development time of a new motor. The committee believes that such efforts should be accelerated to the extent 

practicable. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 mil- lion, for a total of $192.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62203F, 

for the Solid Rocket Motor Produce On-Demand (SRM–POD) program. 

Aerospace propulsion 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $190.9 

million was for PE 62203F aerospace propulsion. 

The committee notes that the Air Force must continue development of critical next-generation engine programs that require both 

significant research and development funding and long-lead times 

for propulsion-system development. Advanced propulsion research 

is critical to meeting the requirements of advanced weapon systems 

concepts. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 mil- lion, for a total of $193.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62203F, 

for turbine engine technology development. 

Aerospace sensors 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $166.5 

million was for PE 62204F aerospace sensors. 

The committee is concerned with the growth in this year’s request for electronic component technology, electro-optical sensors 

and countermeasures technology and radio frequency sensors and 

countermeasures. Though the committee recognizes the importance 

of these technologies for warfare in contested environments, the 

committee urges the Air Force to take advantage of similar work 

occurring elsewhere in the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5 million, for a total of $159.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62204F. 

Skywave Technologies Laboratory 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $141.9 

million was for PE 62605F directed energy technology. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), this committee urged the Department of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for science and 

technology facilities, as well as those used for test and evaluation. 

89 

Unfortunately, these projects generally fall victim to low 

prioritization, despite their major value to the Department’s mission. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 mil- lion, for a total of $145.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62605F, 

for minor military construction. The committee adds these funds in 

order to fund the request for the Skywave Technologies Laboratory. 

The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to ensure that coordination regarding the appropriate planning and design occurs so 

that these projects are executable. 

High energy laser research 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $43.4 

million was for PE 62890F high energy laser research. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy specifically highlights the importance of directed energy and the potential 

that it holds for future operational capabilities. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 mil- lion, for a total of $45.9 million, in RDT&E Air Force, PE 62890F. 

High powered microwave research 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $43.4 

million was for PE 62890F high energy laser research. 

The committee recognizes the importance of high powered microwave research as a component of directed energy technologies. Another provision in this Act specifically authorizes the Joint Directed 

Energy Transition Office to conduct this research along with its 

other duties. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $53.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 62890F 

for high powered microwave research. 

Advanced materials for research 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $34.4 

million was for PE 63112F advanced materials for weapons systems. 

Though the committee recognizes the importance of materials development for critical systems, the committee believes that alternative approaches may be needed to ensure successful transition of 

these technologies into operational systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $29.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63112F, 

advanced materials for weapons systems. 

Materials affordability 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $34.4 

million was for PE 63112F advanced materials for weapons systems. 

The Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) is a public-private partnership that has produced innovative metals technology for use in 

90 

a variety of Department of Defense systems over the past 19 years. 

The MAI has demonstrated significant improvements in the manufacture of specialty metals for aerospace applications for both the 

government and industry, and it provides the warfighter with metals of improved strength and durability, often at a reduced cost. 

This highly-successful initiative has resulted in over 100 current or 

planned insertions of new technology into systems Defense-wide 

with a tenfold return on total government investment (a total of 

$2.4 billion). 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 mil- lion, for a total of $36.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63112F, 

for materials affordability. 

Sustainment in science and technology 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $15.1 

million was for PE 63199F sustainment in science and technology. 

The committee notes that sustainment science and technology 

are directed at creating sustainable technologies, improving 

sustainment-related tools and processes, and developing technologies to fundamentally change sustainment missions. Given ongoing concerns about sustainment costs, the committee endorses 

this important mission and recommends that the Air Force continue to increase resourcing in this area. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 mil- lion, for a total of $16.1 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63199F, 

to develop sustainment technologies to improve component design, 

replacement, and concepts for performance improvement and reduced maintenance burden. 

Aerospace technology development and demonstration increase for operational energy capability improvements 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $121.0 

million was for the PE 63211F Aerospace Technology Development/ 

Demonstration. 

The committee continues to recognize the urgent requirement to 

constantly innovate and improve combat capability and operational 

effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and competitive operational energy science and technology investments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for a total of $131.0 million, in PE 

63211F, for Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration. 

Specifically, the committee strongly encourages the Air Force to 

use the increase to fund design and manufacturing of aircraft 

finlets, micro-vanes, and high pressure compressor blade coatings 

that have demonstrated reduced drag, evinced fuel savings, and decreased maintenance requirements. 

Aerospace propulsion and power technology 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $115.4 

million was for PE 63216F aerospace propulsion and power technology. 

91 

The Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator project develops 

and demonstrates core engine technologies for small turbines utilized in current and future aircraft, missile, and remotely piloted 

aircraft propulsion systems. The project develops and demonstrates 

technology to reduce cost of ownership by half while improving mission flexibility and fuel consumption to increase range. It will also 

pave the way for providing much-needed competition where there 

currently is none. The committee strongly encourages the commander of AFMC to fund technologies that lead to low-cost, highperformance turbofan engines of up to 1,200 pounds of thrust. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 mil- lion, for a total of $124.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63216F. 

Multi-mode propulsion advanced technology development 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $115.5 

million was for PE 63216F aerospace technology development and 

demonstration. 

One of the efforts within ‘‘Rocket Propulsion for the 21st Century’’ (RP–21) is directed at developing technologies for high thrust 

chemical and electric thrusters to utilize a common propellant and 

tank. The committee particularly notes the potential for this work 

to decrease servicing complexity for on-orbit refueling and to afford 

space operators maximum mission flexibility to respond to unplanned events. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $120.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63216F, 

for multi-mode propulsion. 

Technology for the sustainment of strategic systems 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $115.5 

million was for PE 63216F aerospace technology development and 

demonstration. 

The committee urges the Air Force to continue to perform altitude demonstrations at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s high 

altitude facility in order to develop integrated post-boost phase 

technologies. These systems can support strategic systems during 

storage, transportation, on alert, and during boost, and post-boost 

launch. Similar technologies are also being developed to reduce lifetime prediction uncertainty for individual rocket motors. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $125.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63216F, 

for technology for sustainment of strategic systems. 

Electronic combat technology 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $55.3 

million was for PE 63270F electronic combat technology. 

The committee supports the collaboration between the Defense 

Digital Service and the Air Force Research Laboratory to improve 

Air Force software engineering capabilities and to address high priority technical issues plaguing Air Force information technology acquisition programs and deployed systems. 

92 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $60.3 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63270F, 

for RF/EO/IR warning and countermeasures. 

Demonstrator Laser Weapons System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $43.4 

million was for PE 63605F advanced weapons technology. 

The committee is aware that collaboration between industry, the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Air Force Research Laboratory has already produced the electric Laser Weapon 

System to detect, identify, and defeat unmanned aircraft system 

and cruise missile threats. The Demonstrator Laser Weapon System was designed to be the premier facility for evaluating the efficacy of lasers against a variety of live fire targets. The committee 

notes that the system can be upgraded to provide a more robust development testbed to prove out the tactics, techniques, and procedures for using a laser weapon for base defense. The testbed will 

also help the Air Force to refine procedures for defending against 

adversary unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $53.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 63605F, 

for continued development of the demonstrator laser weapon system. 

Prototype Tanker 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $28.4 

million was for PE 64776F Deployment and Distribution Enterprise 

R&D. 

The committee is concerned about the growing threat to large 

high-value aircraft in contested environments. The KC–135 and 

hopefully the KC–46A in the near future provide greater operational availability and range for a broad swath of the joint force’s 

aerial power projection and mobility portfolios. However, these assets are manned and increasingly difficult to protect. The committee believes, given the increasingly challenging operating environments our potential adversaries are presenting, it is prudent to 

explore options for optionally unmanned and more survivable tankers that could operate autonomously as part of a large, dispersed 

logistics fleet that could sustain attrition in conflict. Consequently, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prototype 

a contested environment tanker. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $38.4 million in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64776F, 

for prototyping a contested environment tanker. 

Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $1.2 billion was for PE 64858F Tech Transition Program. 

The committee, in consultation with the Air Force, believes this 

program can be accelerated. 

93 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64858F, 

Tech Transition Program. 

Technology transition program 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $1.2 billion was for PE 64858F technology transition. 

The committee supports the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics intent to accelerate the 

Air Force Research Laboratory’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology (using technology from the Strategic Capability Office’s Avatar program) for collaborative pairing with manned platforms, potentially including the F–35. The committee views the combined 

application of commercial ‘‘smart’’ technology, autonomy, and artificial intelligence as imperative for solving current military challenges. Teams of low-cost collaborative systems provide new mechanisms to ensure survivability and mission success without 

leveraging exquisite technology and its associated high cost and 

long development timelines. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64858F, 

for low cost attributable aircraft prototype transition. 

Air Force supply chain innovation 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $1.2 billion was for PE 64858F technology transition. 

The committee is supportive of the Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics’ initiative to focus 

resources on increasing innovation within the Air Force’s supply 

chain. Though constituting approximately 70% of the Air Force’s 

budget, sustainment receives few resources for new technology development—predictive analytics, agile manufacturing, digital engineering, and artificial intelligence—to drive down costs. Given current aircraft availability shortfalls, the committee urges the Air 

Force to focus on the consolidation of technology development, applications to current availability challenges, and transitioning to 

the depots, all while developing and equipping the sustainment 

workforce. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $42.8 million, for a total of $1.4 billion, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64858F, 

for Air Force supply chain innovation. 

Contracting Information Technology System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $17.6 

million was for PE 91410F Contracting Information Technology 

System. 

The committee is concerned about duplication among the Services in contract writing systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.6 million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 91410F. 

94 

Advanced Battle Management System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $207.7 

million was for PE 64281F Tactical Data Networks Enterprise. 

As part of its movement towards an Advanced Battle Management System, the Air Force has indicated the need to increase the 

capability of its communications and data links. The committee 

strongly supports efforts to increase the capability of our information links. The committee also strongly supports efforts to accelerate capabilities that will make our forces more relevant and effective at deterring, and, if necessary, defeating a peer adversary. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million, for a total of $257.7 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64281F, 

for Agile Communications, High Capacity Backbone and Link 16 

Enhancements in order to accelerate the Advanced Battle Management System. 

JSTARS recap radar 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $0.0 was 

for PE 37581F for the JSTARS Recapitalization. 

The committee is concerned that the Air Force’s decision to cancel the JSTARS Recapitalization program leaves in limbo the continued development of the Recap radar, for which the Air Force has 

spent years and millions of dollars bringing to its current maturity. 

The committee supports the Air Force’s move to an Advanced Battle Management System but is apprehensive about the Air Force’s 

proposal to divest existing capability in the current JSTARS aircraft while its plan for future capability remains aspirational. The 

risk, if not likelihood, of a significant capability gap warrants mitigation. 

As the Air Force evolves its view of what the Advanced Battle 

Management System entails and begins to bring capability online, 

the committee believes that it is prudent to continue development 

of the Recap radar to explore further potential uses and provide the 

Air Force with options. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million, for a total of $50.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 37581F, 

for continued Ground Moving Target Indicator radar development. 

Major Test and Evaluation Management 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $91.8 

million was for PE 64759F, Major Test and Evaluation (T&E) Investment. 

The committee notes the importance of test and evaluation infrastructure to bring mature capabilities to the warfighter. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 mil- lion, for a total of $106.8 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 64759F, 

to fund improvements for Air Force test infrastructure. 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $47.3 

95 

million was for PE 65018F Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay 

System (AF–IPPS). 

The committee is concerned about the lengthy timeline for delivery of capability to users. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to adopt modern software development practices 

that deliver capabilities to users in shorter increments and 

timelines. Best practices for incremental development call for delivering functional capabilities to the end-user at intervals of 6 

months or less. However AF–IPPS does not plan to delivery any capability to users until fiscal year 2021. The committee feels that 

the use of modern, commercial acquisition practices is especially 

important to support critical management, personnel and pay activities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.1 mil- lion, for a total of $13.2 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 65018F. 

B–52 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $280.4 

million was for PE 11113F for B–52 system improvements. The Air Force has requested a transfer of $14.8 million from 

Aviation Procurement, Air Force (APAF) to this PE. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.8 million, for a total of $295.2 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 11113F, 

for B–52 system improvements. 

Airborne Early Warning and Control System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $120.7 

million was for PE 27417F for the Airborne Warning and Control 

System (AWACS). 

As part of its movement towards an Advanced Battle Management System, the Air Force has indicated the need to increase the 

capability of its AWACS aircraft through advanced communications, networking, and sensor capabilities. The committee believes 

these capabilities should be accelerated. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $130.7 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 27417F 

for E–3 Advanced Battle Management and Surveillance Bridge Capabilities. 

Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $50.9 

million was for PE 78055F Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul 

System. 

The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery timeline 

for this program, going multiple years without delivering capability 

to the end-user. The committee notes that for many IT programs 

and activities the Department has been slow to adopt modern, commercial ‘‘agile’’ acquisition practices. In many programs the Department is still using dated and slower IT development and deployment practices—which usually end up being more costly and delivering out-of-date software products. 

96 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.1 million, for a total of $15.8 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 78055F. 

Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System Increment 2 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $99.7 

million was for PE 91538F Financial Management Information 

Systems Development, including $11.8 million for Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System Increment Two. 

The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery timeline 

for this program, going multiple years without delivering capability 

to the end-user. The committee notes that for many information 

technology (IT) programs and activities the Department has been 

slow to adopt modern, commercial ‘‘agile’’ acquisition practices. In 

many programs the Department is still using dated and slower IT 

development and deployment practices—which usually end up 

being more costly and delivering out-of-date software products. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.8 million, for a total of $87.9 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 91538F. 

Defense Wide 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency defense research sciences 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$422.1 million was for PE 61101E defense research sciences. 

The committee recognizes that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency’s defense research sciences program element provides the technical foundation for long-term national security 

through the discovery of new phenomena and exploration for defense applications. The committee is especially encouraged by the 

materials sciences work in this activity. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $427.1 million, in RDT&E Defense-wide, PE 

61101E. 

Critical materials 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$422.1 million was for PE 61101E defense research sciences. 

The committee recognizes the work done by the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) to focus on technologies that make better use 

of rare earth materials and eliminate the need for rare earth materials that are subject to supply disruptions. Therefore, the committee urges the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to 

work closely with entities such as CMI to further its own research 

on critical materials related to Department of Defense needs. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $424.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

61101E, for critical materials research. 

97 

Defense-wide quantum information sciences 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $42.7 

million was for PE 61110D8Z basic research initiatives. 

The committee notes the transformative potential of quantum information sciences, with potential impacts across disciplines as diverse as cryptography and sensing. In competition with near-peer 

adversaries, such cutting-edge technology will become increasingly 

critical. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $49.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

61110D8Z, for quantum information sciences. 

Basic research initiatives 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $42.7 

million was for PE 61110D8Z basic research initiatives. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused in 

technical areas of interest to Department of Defense missions lay 

the foundation upon which other technology development and new 

defense systems are built. Basic research activities fund efforts at 

universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These 

investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $49.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

61110D8Z. 

Activities to determine more effective personal protective 

equipment against blast injury 

The budget request included $708.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for Basic Research, of which $47.8 million was for PE 61117E Basic Operational Medical Research Science. 

The committee remains concerned about the prevalence of mild 

and severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) among servicemembers. 

Servicemembers exposed to repetitive concussive events or severe 

TBI due to repeated blasts and blast injuries are at high risk for 

long-term negative consequences to brain health, including the development of chronic neuro-degenerative disease. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $57.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for Basic 

Research, PE 61117E, for Basic Operational Medical Research 

Science to conduct activities to determine the most effective personal protective equipment against blast injury. The provision authorizing such activities is contained in this title. 

Joint munitions program 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $19.1 

million was for PE 62000D8Z joint munitions program. 

The committee is encouraged by the program element’s mission 

of developing joint enabling technologies that can be used by the 

98 

Program Executive Officers as they develop their specific weapon 

programs. As expressed in the National Defense Strategy, future 

conflicts will increasingly require a joint perspective in these types 

of technology areas. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $21.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

62000D8Z, for insensitive munitions. 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $60.6 

million was for PE 62251D8Z applied research for the advancement 

of science and technology priorities. 

Though the committee is supportive of prototyping and early 

launch of science and technology applied research projects to shape 

investments, the committee is concerned with the large growth for 

this program element, given that the request was $11.0 million 

lower in the previous budget request. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5 million, for a total of $53.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

62251D8Z. 

Tactical technology 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$335.4 million was for PE 62702E tactical technology. 

In accordance with the National Defense Strategy, the committee 

is supportive of developing new concepts and technologies to enhance the next generation of tactical systems. The committee urges 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to continue efforts 

in Advanced Tactical Technology and Aeronautics Technology. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $337.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

62702E. 

Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement 

System 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$335.4 million was for PE 62702E tactical technology. 

The committee notes that a number of efforts in this program 

element are proposed for significant growth at a time when similar 

activities in the Services and the Strategic Capabilities Office are 

also growing. At the same time, the committee is concerned that 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency appears to be undertaking some of these efforts without sufficient coordination with 

the defense research community. 

The committee notes particularly that the Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD–FIRES), 

while potentially capable, faces an uncertain transition future due 

to the complexity involved with installation deployment and practical limitations on its use. In addition, the committee notes that 

99 

the Navy has not yet signed on as a transition partner despite the 

potential application to naval warfare. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, for a total of $330.4 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

62702E, for MAD–FIRES. 

Materials and biological technology 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$226.8 million was for PE 62715E materials and biological technology. 

The committee is concerned with the lack of transition plans for 

some technologies in Functional Materials and Devices and by the 

significant growth within Accelerating Discovery and Innovation 

without a clear justification. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million, for a total of $211.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

62715E. 

Combating terrorism technology support 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$125.2 million was for PE 63122D8Z combating terrorism technology support. 

Despite recognizing the immense contributions of this program 

element to technological advancements over the past decades, the 

committee recognizes that in order to embrace the strategic goals 

laid out by the National Defense Strategy, funding for science and 

technology should move toward potential applications to near-peer 

adversaries. Further, the committee is concerned with the large 

growth between the budget request for the previous year and this 

year’s request. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $14.0 million, for a total of $111.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63122D8Z. 

Advanced aerospace systems 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$227.6 million was for PE 63286E advanced aerospace systems. 

At his confirmation hearing, the recently confirmed Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering emphasized the urgent need for American progress on hypersonic weapons. This program element includes the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept as a joint Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA) effort, in addition to Tactical Boost Glide, another 

joint Air Force and DARPA effort. Both of these technologies represent promising progress, and the committee urges the DARPA to 

increase its focus on their development. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $232.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63286E. 

100 

Blackjack 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $15.0 

million was for PE 63287E Blackjack program. 

The committee notes that funding for a Blackjack on-orbit demonstration is the Air Force’s highest unfunded priority. The committee believes that the successful demonstration of a proliferated 

constellation of satellites in Low Earth Orbit would have profound 

implications for the resiliency and survivability of critical space 

missions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million, for a 

total of $125.0 million, in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE 63287E, to accelerate a cooperative on-orbit demonstration of the co-orbiting military missile 

warning constellation embedded within the commercial LEO megaconstellation and space-cloud network infrastructure. The committee directs the Air Force and DARPA to work with the Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) to assess the potential for meeting MDA’s 

space-based requirements on such a constellation. 

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $29.3 

million was for PE 63342D8W Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx). 

In its short tenure, DIUx has filled a critical niche between 

emerging technology firms and the Department of Defense. Over 

the coming year, the committee urges DIUx to consider the metrics 

by which it measures its success and its role in the full research 

and engineering enterprise that the Department operates. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $0.5 mil- lion, for a total of $29.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63342D8W. 

Networked communications capabilities 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $12.7 

million was for PE 63662D8Z networked communications capabilities. 

Despite the importance of this mission, the committee is concerned about potential duplication of this program element’s activities with those of the Services and urges closer coordination with 

similar programs instead of more funding within this line. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5 mil- lion, for a total of $5.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63662D8Z. 

Enhancing cybersecurity for small vendors 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$114.6 million was for PE 63680D8Z, the Defense-wide manufacturing science and technology program. 

Cyber vulnerabilities faced by the defense industrial base are a 

threat to national security. If cybersecurity vulnerabilities remain 

101 

unaddressed, defense supply chains face a higher likelihood of harboring serious and exploitable vulnerabilities. Moreover, many 

small firms have a significant lack of awareness of the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) cybersecurity requirements, which all DOD suppliers must meet. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $119.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63680D8Z, for cybersecurity protection of small vendors. 

Defense-wide manufacturing science and technology program 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$114.6 million was for PE 63680D8Z Defense-wide manufacturing 

science and technology program. 

The Advanced Electronics and Optics program is a series of efforts addressing advanced manufacturing technologies with a wide 

range of applications. Additional funds can support development of 

advanced thin-film filters for eyewear, providing laser protection 

and rapid adjustment to changing light, improving warfighter visibility and adaptability. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 mil- lion, for a total of $116.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63680D8Z, for eye protection systems. 

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology program 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $49.7 

million was for PE 63680S manufacturing technology. 

The committee notes the critical importance of improving manufacturing capability through a product’s life cycle and applauds this 

program for providing low-risk technology implementation for small 

businesses and defense unique suppliers. The program’s focus on 

maintaining viable supply sources and improving manufacturing 

processes have resulted in particularly large savings for the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $52.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63680S. 

Defense Logistics Agency generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $11.8 

million was for PE 63712S generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations. 

The committee notes the critical importance of logistics, especially given the National Defense Strategy’s assumption that future 

operating environments will be contested. The committee urges 

prototyping and demonstrations in order to quickly test capabilities 

that might hold promise for future operational concepts. 

The committee notes that for many years the Department of Defense has been developing various innovative technologies such as 

102 

autonomous vehicles, unmanned aircraft systems, additive manufacturing, and robots to help support a wide variety of mission 

needs. Some of these technologies could significantly improve combat capability and help save and preserve the lives of warfighters 

by performing similar duties on the battlefield. Autonomous vehicles could be used to move convoys of vehicles carrying water, fuel, 

and other supplies through dangerous areas without putting 

warfighters directly at risk. The committee understands that the 

Services have been working on these and other technologies to also 

enhance the Department’s global supply chain. 

The committee encourages the Services to jointly develop and 

share new technology gains and breakthroughs so that all the Services can benefit from more technologically advanced supply chain 

capabilities. Additionally, while leveraging the latest technologies 

can help address global supply chain needs, the committee notes 

the importance of monitoring, regulating, and managing the potential risks from innovative technologies. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million, for a total of $12.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63712S. 

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

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $77.7 

million was for the PE 63716D8Z Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and $58.6 million was 

for the PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). 

The committee notes that both SERDP and ESTCP demonstrate 

and validate the most promising innovative technologies that can 

meet the Department’s most urgent requirements, provide a return 

on investment, and are executed through a free and open competition. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63716D8Z, for SERDP, and an 

increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63851D8Z, 

for ESTCP for respective totals of $87.7 million and $68.6 million. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department to use the 

increases in SERDP and ESTCP to address the following: (1) To 

help ensure the safety and welfare of the servicemembers and their 

dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution 

and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial 

actions and compliance with environmental laws and regulations, 

specifically as it relates to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances; (2) 

To develop, demonstrate, validate, and field fluorine-free firefighting foam; (3) To meet long-term environmental threats and 

sustain training and testing ranges; (4) To advance sustainable 

technologies and bio-based products that meet military requirements; and (5) To advance other technologies deemed appropriate. 

103 

Microelectronics technology development and support 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$168.9 million was for PE 63720S manufacturing technology. 

The committee notes that the Tunable Filter Program focuses on 

advancement of microelectronic tunable thin film filters to provide 

greater functionality for wireless communications systems at reduced cost, size, weight, and power demand. The budget request includes insufficient funds to continue this program, critical to development of next-generation communications systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $173.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63720S. 

Advanced electronics technologies 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$111.0 million was for PE 63739E advanced electronics technologies. 

The committee understands the importance of microelectronics 

fabrication, and, in particular, the Beyond Scaling Advanced Technologies project, which focuses on large scale co-development with 

industry as well as the design and capture of advanced intellectual 

property (IP) architectures, IP sharing, and access to foundries. 

The committee urges coordination between this effort and similar 

ongoing complementary work in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5 mil- lion, for a total of $118.5 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63739E, for Electronics Resurgence Initiative. 

Network-centric warfare technology 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$483.5 million was for PE 63766E network-centric warfare technology. 

Though the committee appreciates the importance of networkcentric warfare for the future battle environment, the committee is 

concerned about the potential for transition of some of the projects 

within this program element. The committee is specifically concerned with tactical exploitation of the acoustic channel. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $473.5 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63766E. 

Sensor technology 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$190.1 million was for PE 63767E sensor technology. 

The committee recognizes the threat posed by multiple small unmanned aerial systems beyond the line-of-sight. Therefore, the 

committee is encouraged by the mission and progress of projects 

like Aerial Dragnet and encourages collaboration with similar efforts occurring elsewhere in the Department of Defense. 

104 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million, for a 

total of $191.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 63767E, for 

sensor technology. 

Quick reaction special projects 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $69.6 

million was for PE 63826D8Z quick reaction special projects. 

The committee is concerned about the duplication of activities 

within this program element elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee is particularly concerned about the ability of 

the Rapid Reaction Fund to achieve its stated mission. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $59.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63826D8Z. 

Test and evaluation science and technology related to 

hypersonics and directed energy 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $96.3 

million was for PE 63941D8Z test and evaluation science and technology. 

Given the importance of hypersonic weapons and directed energy 

to the execution of the National Defense Strategy, establishing high 

quality testing facilities for these systems should be a high priority 

for the Department of Defense. Too often, these supporting functions are forgotten and research suffers for lack of test facility capacity. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $106.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63941D8Z, for hypersonics and directed energy test. 

Test and evaluation science and technology workforce development 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $96.3 

million was for PE 63941D8Z test and evaluation science and technology. 

The committee recognizes the integral importance of test and 

evaluation to successful science and technology development. The 

committee urges the Department of Defense to prioritize supporting capabilities that will enable technological progress—namely, investment in the workforce qualified in these disciplines. Research across disciplines depends on the engagement of experienced 

and qualified personnel. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $101.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

63941D8Z, for workforce development. 

Operational energy capability improvement 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $40.5 

million was for the PE 64055D8Z Operational Energy Capability 

Improvement Fund (OECIF). 

105 

The committee continues to recognize the urgent requirement to 

constantly innovate and improve combat capability and operational 

effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and competitive operational energy science and technology investments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $50.5 million, in RDT&E, PE 64055D8Z, for 

OECIF. 

Specifically, the committee strongly encourages the Department 

to use the OECIF and increase in funding to address the following 

urgent concerns: deployable technologies that can harvest water 

from air, tactical microgrids, sustainable forward operating bases, 

alternative energy storage in contested environments, waste to energy technologies that are necessary given the continual challenge 

of open-air burn pits, joint infantry company prototypes, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and other technologies deemed 

appropriate. 

National Security Innovation Activities 

The budget request included $3.7 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for advanced 

technology development. 

The committee remains concerned about foreign investment in 

emerging hardware technologies with potential national security 

applications that are produced by United States companies. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 

million to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), 

Defense-wide, line number to be determined, to conduct activities 

to establish interactions between the Department of Defense and 

the commercial technology industry and academia with the goal of 

encouraging private investment in specific hardware technologies of 

interest to future defense technology needs with unique national 

security applications. The provision authorizing such national security innovation activities is contained in this Act. 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $3.8 

million was for the PE 604016D8Z Department of Defense (DOD) 

Corrosion Program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 

has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since 

fiscal year 2011. The DOD estimates that the cost to prevent and 

mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, 

weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure, is approximately $22.9 

billion. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $8.8 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program. 

Trusted and assured microelectronics 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of $233.1 million was for PE 64294D8Z trusted and assured microelectronics. 

106 

The committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply 

chain assurance against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready access to trusted microelectronics. The committee notes its desire for 

a long-term strategy for the development of trusted microelectronics that can withstand any future problems with an international supply chain. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million, for a total of $238.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

64294D8Z, for new trusted approach development. 

Defense Contract Management Agency information technology development 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $12.0 

million was for PE 65013BL, Information Technology Development. 

The committee is concerned about the lengthy delivery timeline 

for this program, going multiple years without delivering capability 

to the end-user. The committee notes that for many information 

technology (IT) programs and activities the Department has been 

slow to adopt modern, commercial ‘‘agile’’ acquisition practices. In 

many programs the Department is still using dated and slower IT 

development and deployment practices—which usually end up 

being more costly and delivering out-of-date software products. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $12.0 million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65013BL. 

Deputy Chief Management Officer policy and integration 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $2.1 

million was for PE 65075D8Z Deputy Chief Management Officer 

(DCMO) Policy and Integration. 

The committee recognizes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) gave the Office 

of the Chief Management Officer significantly increased responsibilities for data management and integration across the Department of Defense. Based on this new mission, the committee encourages the Department to invest in improved data processing and 

analytics tools to fulfill its expanded responsibilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million, for a total of $3.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65075D8Z, for data and advanced analytics. 

Defense-wide electronic procurement capabilities 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $6.4 

million was for PE 65210D8Z for Defense-wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities. 

The committee is concerned about duplication among the Services in contract-writing systems. The committee encourages the 

program to consolidate requirements for contract-writing systems 

across the department. 

107 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.4 million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 65210D8Z, for a total of $0.0 million. 

Trusted and assured microelectronics engineering and manufacturing development 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $56.2 

million was for PE 65294D8Z trusted and assured microelectronics. 

The committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply 

chain assurance against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready access to trusted microelectronics. The committee notes its desire for 

a long-term strategy for the development of trusted microelectronics that fulfill Department of Defense needs. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million, for a total of $58.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65294D8Z. 

Hypersonic experimentation facilities 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which 

$258.7 million was for PE 64940D8Z, Central Test and Evaluation 

Investment Development (CTEIP). 

The committee is encouraged by the priority the Department of 

Defense has placed on hypersonic capability development. However, 

the committee remains concerned that the United States may face 

a shortfall in advanced hypersonic experimentation facilities. The 

committee recognizes the important role that wind tunnels play in 

research development, and believes that the Department should 

make investments in hypersonic test and experimentation facilities 

that leverage the capabilities of academic institutions, government 

laboratories, and Industry teams to perform the necessary applied 

research. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $268.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

64940D8Z, for hypersonic experimentation facilities. 

Joint mission environment test capability 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $84.2 

million was for PE 65100D8Z joint mission environment test capability. 

The committee shares the view, repeatedly cited across the Department of Defense, that the lack of cyber range capacity, 

connectivity, and adequate interoperability is negatively impacting 

the military’s ability to train in seamless, operationally realistic 

cyberspace environments and poses one of the greatest cyber challenges to the joint force. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $89.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65100D8Z, for cyber range capacity and development. These funds 

will allow for the construction of additional cyber range capacity 

and connectivity and support the Department’s cyber ranges by imVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
108 

proving their cyber range architectures, instrumentation, standards, and workforce. 

Technical studies, support and analysis 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $22.6 

million was for PE 65104D8Z technical studies, support and analysis. 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to make use of 

a broader set of analytic capabilities, including those at not-forprofit research organizations and think tanks, universities, and inhouse laboratories to support these types of analyses. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $17.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65104D8Z. 

Developmental Test and Evaluation 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $20.2 

million was for PE 65804D8Z, Developmental Test and Evaluation. 

The committee notes that software is becoming an increasingly 

important part of weapons systems and requires matching test capabilities. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 mil- lion, for a total of $25.2 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65804D8Z, to improve software testing capabilities. 

Policy research and development programs 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $6.3 

million was for PE 35186D8Z policy research and development programs. 

The committee urges closer coordination with similar efforts elsewhere in the Department of Defense and across the intelligence 

community. The committee is also concerned about the growth in 

this request over past years. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million, for a total of $3.3 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

65186D8Z. 

Personnel security and continuous evaluation innovation 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $5.6 

million was for PE 35327V insider threat. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed the Defense 

Security Service to undertake an additional mission of background 

investigations and personnel security for Department of Defense 

(DOD) personnel. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee directed the 

DOD to engage with cutting-edge technology entities in order to advance existing capabilities related to personnel security, and this 

funding is meant to complement that directive. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $10.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 

109 

35327V, for personnel security and continuous evaluation innovation. 

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation cyber projects 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $71.0 

million was for PE 65814OTE, Operational Test Activities and 

Analyses. 

The committee notes that cybersecurity is an increasingly important matter for programs. As technologies and systems become 

more complex, the Department must augment investments in test 

and evaluation technologies. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.9 million, for a total of $81.9 million, for PE 65814OTE, Operational 

Test Activities and Analyses. 

Items of Special Interest 

AC–130J High Energy Laser 

The committee recommends full authorization of the $34.0 million requested in fiscal year 2019 for the U.S. Special Operations 

Command (USSOCOM) AC–130J High Energy Laser (HEL) program intended to deliver a 60 kilowatt laser for operational assessment during fiscal year 2022. However, the committee is concerned 

that the future year’s defense program for fiscal years 2020 

through 2022 does not project sufficient funds for the completion of 

this effort and an additional $62.0 million will be required to integrate, test, and assess the laser weapons system in the coming 

years. 

As noted in testimony before the committee, the advanced state 

of the HEL technology may permit an expedited schedule of integration, testing, and operational assessment of this weapon system. 

The committee believes that the Department should make the investment necessary to field this potentially transformative capability as soon as possible. 

For fiscal year 2018, the committee notes that the Air Force and 

the Rapid Reaction Technology Office has committed to providing 

a total of $29.0 million to complement the $15.6 million allocated 

by USSOCOM for the AC–130J HEL effort. The committee strongly 

supports continued joint funding of this program given the significant potential application of HEL capabilities beyond special operations missions and the need to ensure integration with other 

HEL-related efforts across the Department. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, to submit a plan for fully funding the AC–130J HEL program 

in fiscal years 2020 to 2022 with the Department’s budget request 

for fiscal year 2020. 

Acoustic Threat Detection 

The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Army to develop 

and operationally test acoustic threat detection technologies and is 

supportive of the continued deployment of these systems in AfghanVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
110 

istan and other locations to aid of combat operations. However, the 

committee is concerned about increased threats from unmanned 

aerial systems to forward operating bases. The committee encourages the Army to develop and operationally test sensor systems 

that can accurately detect and geo-locate both ground and air 

threats. 

Therefore, not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide to the 

congressional defense committees a briefing on existing threat detection technologies and capabilities, results of exercises and deployed operational testing, technologies available to detect both 

ground and air threats using a single integrated system, and the 

ability to accelerate the development and fielding of this technology 

to a program of record. 

Active Protection System for Abrams, Bradley, Stryker 

The committee notes that the Army’s M1 Abrams Tank will be 

upgraded with the Trophy Active Protection System (APS), which 

has already been used in battle to protect the Israel Defense Forces 

Merkava tanks. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91) provided $138.7 million in funding for one brigade in Europe and another $171.0 million in an unfunded requirement for more APSs that could be used for Trophy for the Korean 

theater. The budget request included $617.5 million that would 

support funding the procurement of 282 APSs and countermeasures for the Abrams tanks. 

The Committee strongly supports the President’s Budget Request 

for APS for Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker. 

Additive manufacturing within the military departments 

The committee remains strongly supportive of the Department of 

Defense’s efforts to leverage additive manufacturing (AM) processes 

and applications in order to improve the Department’s capabilities 

and materiel readiness. The committee strongly encourages the Department to pursue AM in order to augment the current supply 

chain, achieve shorter lead times compared to traditional manufacturing methods, negate the impact of obsolete or out-of-production 

sources of supply, and reduce costs and weight at the point of need. 

The committee recognizes that the requirement to certify and 

qualify AM parts and components remains a fundamental challenge to broader and more rapid use of AM capabilities across the 

military departments. The committee is encouraged by the formation of the Joint AM Steering Group and Joint AM Working Group 

and encourages them to work with the Services to identify AM best 

practices. The committee also encourages the Services to continue 

advancing the qualification, certification, and integration of AM 

parts into the supply chain. The committee believes that the Services should continue to develop requirements and training necessary at the levels of warfighter, artisan, and acquisition officer. 

The Department must also ensure that any technical data and intellectual property related to AM parts are appropriately protected. 

111 

Advanced countermeasure dispenser system for 4th generation/legacy aircraft 

The committee is aware that potential adversaries are making 

significant improvements in their ability to detect, target, and engage U.S. tactical aircraft across the infrared (IR) and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Fourth-generation, ‘‘legacy aircraft’’, are 

particularly vulnerable and, as they will form a significant portion 

of our tactical aircraft inventory for decades to come, their survivability will be increasingly challenged. 

Legacy aircraft must include the ability to counter these emerging threats through readily-available and quickly-integrated 

means, including advance IR/RF expendable countermeasures and 

more capable dispensing systems. 

Therefore, the committee strongly supports investment to sustain 

the survivability of our 4th generation tactical aircraft, including 

advanced countermeasures and their associated dispensing systems. 

Advanced hull technology 

The committee understands that the Navy may be making greater use of small planing boats to counter asymmetrical threats. The 

committee has supported the Navy’s investment in sophisticated 

computer hydrodynamic modeling and simulation tools for design, 

testing, and analysis of high-performance and high-efficiency hull 

forms. 

The committee encourages the Navy to increase its investment in 

an advanced hull form development and prototype demonstration 

initiative and at sea testing to accelerate the development and 

transition of advanced hull designs, particularly hull forms that reduce injury to small craft operators and warfighters. 

Advanced low-weight body armor report 

The committee is aware that next generation body armor technology, including ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, may 

provide maximum protection against a wide range of ballistics 

threats in a lighter, more flexible application that enhances comfort, mobility, and safety. Furthermore, high performance lightweight body armor technology could successfully protect 

warfighters, and with a range of modern lightweight, low-profile 

material grades, next generation body armor may offer a practical 

solution for all soldiers. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in conjunction with the service secretaries, 

is directed to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The report should describe the Department’s efforts to make available 

ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and other next generation body armor technologies, including for vests, helmets and inserts. The report should also review technologies across the Services and highlight those that provide exceptional protective performance without compromising comfort, agility, or function. 

Aerospace sensors 

U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Navy front-line fighter aircraft 

are equipped with the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) 

112 

radar with all services actively pursuing back fit of AESA radars 

on legacy aircraft. The USAF has identified threats from adversaries operating at frequencies where AESA’s capabilities can be 

further improved and the USAF has tasked the Air Force Research 

Lab to lead the development of technologies that address these capability gaps. The Air Force’s objective is to develop hardware that 

can be used across the services to address spectrum threats not 

only to AESA radars but threats to weapons, missile seekers, and 

other airborne platforms. The committee believes that dedicated resources to this program will result in newer, more capable arrays 

which will provide significant performance advantages, with wider 

frequency coverage. The committee encourages the Air Force to 

continue these efforts and provide resources as needed to develop 

newer, more capable arrays which will provide significant performance advantages. 

Airless Tire Technology Demonstration 

Special operations and other forces are heavily deployed across 

the world and will continue to be, in increasingly asymmetrical and 

unconventional warfare environments. The committee supports 

technology that will dramatically improve the mobility and safety 

of military personnel operating in hazardous environments, like 

non-pneumatic or airless tire technology. Airless tires can be superior to conventional tires in specific locations because they remain 

consistent in different atmospheric pressures and austere environments, are low maintenance, and require no additional inflation 

gauges or tools, saving weight and space for other essential equipment. The committee notes that an airless tire technology prototype has been developed and patented commercially and could be 

deployed in the next 18–24 months. 

Army Assured Mobility in Northern Regions 

Given the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis on great power 

competition, the Committee is interested in the Army’s plans for 

ensuring the mobility of Army ground vehicles in northern terrain 

environments to include the Arctic region and similar cold weather 

terrain. The Committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to 

ensure that ground vehicles are adequately prepared by conducting 

a series of experiments, if necessary, in these harsh northern environs, to include snow, ice, and muskeg. Such experiences could 

demonstrate science and technology capabilities to support future 

acquisition. Furthermore, the Secretary may develop a test plan to 

assess the current vehicle fleet and, if required, develop potential 

vehicle upgrades to support maneuver in northern regions that incorporate new hardware and software technologies. 

Combat Vehicle Light Weight Development Program 

The committee understands that legacy ground combat vehicles 

are struggling to meet performance requirements, especially survivability, due to the increasing threat and resulting armor applique 

weight increases. Developing lightweight combat vehicles is critical 

to warfighter effectiveness, fuel management, and mobility. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense 

to accelerate research, development, and partnership activities inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
113 

volving industry, government laboratories, and academia to accelerate development of lightweight materials and manufacturing 

methods for next generation ground combat vehicles. 

The focus of the program should be on new, stronger, and lighter 

materials, multi-material manufacturing processes, innovative 

lightweight design methods, and technology transfer to develop a 

robust industrial base. 

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

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to undertake a review of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

industry Independent Research and Development (IR&D) funding. 

For nearly 80 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied 

on industry IR&D as a key source of innovation to help maintain 

U.S. superiority on the battlefield. IR&D is initiated and conducted 

by defense contractors without direct DOD funding. Rather, IR&D 

costs are allowable as indirect expenses on contracts to the extent 

that they are allocable, fair, and reasonable. 

To qualify as IR&D, the work must fall within the four following 

areas: (1) Basic research; (2) Applied research; (3) Development; 

and (4) Systems and other concept formulation studies. Further, 

the work must not be sponsored by a grant, required in the performance of a contract, or include technical effort expended in developing and preparing technical data specifically to support a submitted bid or proposal. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) outlines additional IR&D requirements. Importantly, DOD’s 

IR&D program offers participating industry firms the independence 

to decide which technologies to pursue, as long as these efforts are 

of potential interest to the DOD, as required by the Defense FAR 

Supplement. In recent years, however, the DOD and industry have 

cited communication gaps as having undermined their ability to 

validate that this linkage exists. Specifically, industry participants 

have lacked consistent visibility on DOD’s investment priorities, 

and the DOD has lacked insight into industry IR&D projects. 

The DOD has taken some steps to address the aforementioned 

gaps, including the creation of a Defense Innovation Marketplace 

website to facilitate IR&D communication. Nonetheless, the committee remains concerned that these actions may not provide sufficient guidance to maximize the impact of industry’s IR&D investments for the DOD. The committee notes that the 2018 National 

Defense Strategy also highlights the need for additional changes to 

industry culture and investment sources in order to maintain 

DOD’s technological advantage. Accordingly, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to review DOD’s 

IR&D efforts. This review should address: (1) DOD’s policies and 

processes for managing IR&D, including how it structures contracts 

with industry partners to facilitate IR&D; (2) The levels and types 

of investment the DOD and industry have made in IR&D; (3) The 

benefits and incentives that IR&D offers to its industry participants; and (4) The innovation outcomes that the DOD and industry 

have obtained through IR&D. The review should also recommend 

improvements to DOD’s IR&D efforts, as appropriate. 

114 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Gremlins AirRecoverable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System 

The committee is aware of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) led ‘‘Gremlins’’ research project focused 

on technologies enabling aircraft to launch volleys of affordable and 

reusable unmanned air systems (OAS), while reliably recovering 

them in mid-air. The committee is familiar with the persistent 

anti-access area denial (A2/AD) threat and believes that the project 

may develop a strategic tool in countering such tactics. The committee remains encouraged by the ongoing research and progress 

of the project, noting the award of a Phase 3 contract to support 

a feasibility demonstration in fiscal year 2019. 

The committee encourages the Air Force to review and evaluate 

the Gremlins Program as the demonstrated capabilities mature, 

and develop a coordinated strategy with DARPA for potential transition of systems or technologies into Air Force programs. Considering the importance of overcoming A2/AD tactics by our adversaries, the committee expects the Air Force to keep the congressional defense committees updated on the Department’s plans for 

potential transition of this critical technology into a formal acquisition effort. 

Department of Defense Laboratory talent management and 

succession planning 

The committee shares concerns raised by the Defense Science 

Board that the Department of Defense laboratories should invest in 

succession planning, in order to ensure quality high-level staff. 

This concern is especially acute given the near-constant need to 

adapt to emerging technology. Laboratory directors should conduct 

a strategic planning process to ensure that high level personnel are 

serving in appropriate positions and that an adequate succession 

plan exists. 

Diamond transistor technology for power conversion in 

combat infrastructure 

The committee recognizes the Army’s ongoing need to reduce the 

size and weight and increase the power and efficiency of electrical 

power conversion and distribution systems used in combat and field 

deployable operations. The committee understands that diamond 

semiconductors offer the potential to potentially reduce the size 

and weight of these systems, provide significant gains in power and 

efficiency, and increase system survivability through enhanced 

electromagnetic pulse protection. The committee is encouraged by 

the interest shown by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Combat Engineering Research Laboratory in investigating new techniques to build on previous efforts to produce diamond transistors, in trying to mature the technology to support potential device and product development, and believes more research 

effort in this field is warranted. 

Fielding of radiation detection devices 

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s efforts to field additional modern radiation detection devices, specifically AN/PDR–75A 

Radiac Sets (Personal Dosimeters), in order to reduce the current 

115 

readiness gap within the Active Army force structure. Although 

nearly fifty percent of Active Army forces do not yet have this relatively inexpensive, yet critical item of equipment, funding provided in fiscal year 2018 will allow the Army to reduce that shortfall significantly. The committee is further encouraged by the 

Army’s efforts in fiscal year 2019 to develop and field the next-generation Joint Personal Dosimeter-Individual (JPDI). An individual 

dosimeter that includes immediate visual alert, measurement of radiation dose, and inclusion of a comprehensive, legal record and definitive proof of radiation exposure over a soldier’s entire career is 

highly beneficial. 

The committee encourages the Army to conduct a rigorous, fair, 

and open competition for this new system to ensure the very best 

dosimeter is developed and selected for deployment to soldiers 

worldwide in order to increase unit and individual survivability. 

Hyper Velocity Projectile 

The committee is aware that the Strategic Capabilities Office 

(SCO) is testing a Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP), a next generation, common, low drag, guided projectile capable of completing 

multiple missions for Navy 5-inch guns, Army and Marine Corps 

155-mm howitzers, and future electromagnetic (EM) railguns. 

The committee understands that the development and fielding of 

HVP is a priority to address mission requirements for conventional 

cannon artillery, naval surface fire support, cruise missile defense, 

anti-ship warfare, and anti-aircraft warfare. The HVP will also be 

critical to future EM railguns, which could achieve projectile speeds 

of Mach 6, double that of conventional naval cannons and artillery. 

The committee believes that the increased velocity, precision and 

extended range of the HVP will provide the Navy, Army, and Marine Corps with the capability to address a variety of current and 

future threats. Coupled with accurate guidance electronics, HVP 

could provide low cost mission effectiveness against current threats 

and the ability to adapt to future air and surface threats. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Strategic Capabilities Office, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, the 

Secretary of the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2018, on the status of the HVP program. The report 

should include when testing will complete and a description of how 

HVP could be fielded on current and future naval guns and cannon 

artillery, including the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) 

Program. 

Improved Turbine Engine Program 

The committee commends the Army for moving forward with research and development for the Improved Turbine Engine Program 

(ITEP). The committee notes the importance of this critical program, which is intended to develop a more fuel-efficient and powerful engine for the current UH–60 Black Hawk and AH–64 Apache 

helicopter fleets. This new engine will substantially increase operational capabilities by increasing range and improving fuel efficiency, while reducing the logistics footprint, resulting in dramatically reduced operating and support costs. 

116 

Given the positive progress of this key program, the committee 

fully supports ITEP in fiscal year 2019. 

Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile 

The committee is concerned that the United States has no mobile, land-based anti-ship missile capability. The committee supports the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires modernization effort, 

in particular its Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) development. The ability to engage and sink enemy ships from as many 

domains as possible can be a critical capability in a contested maritime environment. The committee strongly encourages the Army to 

collaborate with the other Services on compatible sensor technology, fire control systems, and networks to maximize the joint 

force’s ability to locate and successfully engage sea-based weapon 

systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief 

the appropriate defense committees by December 31, 2018, on this 

program, including how the Services are cooperating and collaborating on this effort. 

Military applications for Graphene 

The committee understands that graphene is a promising material that possesses very significant levels of tensile strength, flexibility, transparency, conductivity, and other properties. The committee also understands that initial research demonstrates promising applications for graphene. The committee believes that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) should pursue research into materials that may provide competitive advantages, particularly against 

near-peer potential adversaries. The committee believes that the 

Department should evaluate potential military applications of 

graphene. 

Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Director, Army Research Laboratory; Director, 

Navy Research Laboratory; and Director, Air Force Research Laboratory, shall provide to the congressional defense committees a report on potential military applications of graphene. The report 

shall include the following elements: (1) A description of DOD efforts to study graphene; (2) An assessment of the maturity of basic 

and applied research on graphene; and (3) The potential military 

applications of graphene for ship and aircraft coatings, land-based 

and space-based sensors, individual protective equipment, facility 

blast protection, water and fuel filtration, energy storage, and energy generation in photovoltaic cells. 

Modernizing Towed 105 Artillery Systems 

The committee understands that the Army is considering the 

procurement of a self-propelled 105mm howitzer that could increase the lethality and maintain the mobility of Infantry Brigade 

Combat Teams. The committee remains concerned about the proliferation of sophisticated quick-fire counter-battery systems, and 

believes that the system under consideration could provide a substantial improvement to the Army’s deterrent posture in Europe. 

The committee is aware that the system under evaluation incorporates artillery soft recoil technology with existing 105mm artilVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
117 

lery systems and then further integrates these technologies onto a 

light tactical vehicle platform. This approach could enable the 

Army to achieve significant improvements in combat capability 

with only modest reinvestment of funding for current or future 

planned M119 modifications. The committee encourages the Army 

to continue to review this capability through the Army’s cross-functional team or urgent operational needs processes. 

Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS) 

The committee is aware of the Army UH–72 Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) testing of the Next Generation Health monitoring 

system (NGHMS). The committee understands that initial testing 

shows the potential for NGHMS to collect maintenance intelligence 

and prognostics to enable early warning of failing mechanical systems. This information could reduce emergency maintenance costs, 

provide predictable maintenance schedules, and increase readiness 

for the LUH fleet. 

The committee is aware that recent Army bench testing of the 

technology was successful. Installation onto LUH platforms for 

operational testing will begin in March 2018. Specifically, the U.S 

Army will install NGHMS on 8 Lakota platforms. This initial operational testing is intended to validate increases in readiness and 

reductions in operating costs. However, to assure proper evaluation 

across a variety of missions and terrains, the committee encourages 

the Army to outfit an additional 20 LUH Aircraft with NGHMS 

and include them with the current test schedule. The committee 

believes that additional testing will provide critical information and 

allow for near-term decisions to achieve efficient maintenance 

structures that foster quality and well-organized fleet management. 

Policy issues surrounding emerging technologies for combat 

and non-combat use 

The committee notes increasing public debate from policymakers 

and civil society regarding the employment of emerging technologies. The committee applauds technological advancements in 

fields such as artificial intelligence, unmanned aerial vehicles, facial recognition software, surveillance capabilities, and biological 

enhancements but encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

designate an entity to thoroughly examine the policy questions surrounding their use in combat and non-combat scenarios, including 

potential political, legal, and ethical impacts. 

The Department should outline methods of technological usage 

for new technologies, especially capabilities that utilize the privacy 

and data of U.S. citizens. For instance, cautionary reports from 

civil society, academia, and industry warn of the potentially harmful effects of artificial intelligence in the national security space. 

With the proliferation of drone use and artificial intelligence, the 

DOD has yet to proactively address questions of application and 

use. The committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to consider the anticipated application of 

emerging technologies in combat and non-combat scenarios. 

118 

Rapid-charging hybrid energy storage fuel cells 

The committee acknowledges the availability of advanced hybrid 

energy storage systems that rapidly charge, allowing more time in 

the field, providing more effective use of alternative energy sources, 

and supporting the use of micro-grids for more robust capability. 

The committee encourages further research of these technologies to 

enhance system capability. 

Report on Metal Matrix Composites for Army Vehicles 

The committee recognizes the versatility and broad application 

that Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) Technology provides for the 

armed services by reducing the weight of parts by fifty percent and 

increasing the service life by three to four times over traditional 

steel. The committee recommends that the U.S. Army Tank & 

Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

(TARDEC) continue to test, develop, and field components that can 

reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload 

capacity, and extend service life. 

The committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide the congressional defense committees a report on the progress of development and implementation of MMC components that can be fielded 

in Army Ground and Tactical Wheeled Vehicles in order to reduce 

vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, 

and extend service life. This report should be received no later than 

March 31, 2019. 

Research, development, and procurement of wearable and 

mobile remote power capabilities 

The committee understands the advantages that remote power 

capabilities provide to warfighters in the field, especially renewable 

power sources such as wearable solar panels. Further, the committee understands the benefits this type of combat capability provided through dedicated research and development funding, along 

with procurement and sustainment resources, to not only the military services, but also improve the mission capabilities of Federal 

and state law enforcement entities. 

Additionally, the committee recognizes the ability of academic 

and private entities to research and develop remote power capabilities due private sector applications of the technology. Therefore, 

the committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

continue to invest resources in academic, private, government entities to research, develop, and deploy portable power capabilities 

across the military services in support of warfighter needs. 

Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) Program 

The committee supports the Secretary of the Army’s recent emphasis on modernization, particularly the efforts to increase the 

lethality of our soldiers. Further, the committee is aware that 

small unit intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities can provide soldiers with critically needed situational awareness particularly in subterranean and Global Positioning Systemdenied environments. The committee understands that the Soldier 

Borne Sensor (SBS) program is key to these efforts. Therefore, the 

119 

committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018 

on the SBS program. At a minimum, this report shall include a detailed assessment of threshold requirements, objective requirements, and other factors under consideration as the Army makes 

a determination for the SBS program. 

Surrogates for operational testing of torpedoes and torpedo 

defensive systems 

The committee understands that the Navy routinely conducts inwater operational testing of its anti-submarine torpedoes against 

manned U.S. Navy submarines. The Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation (DOT&E) has indicated that test range safety 

rules, combined with the inability of U.S. nuclear attack submarines to appropriately emulate threat-representative submarines, limit the operational realism of these test events. The 

committee notes that since 2013, the Navy, in coordination with 

the DOT&E, has worked to define the requirements for a mobile 

set-to-hit torpedo target, but has yet to procure such targets. The 

committee is concerned that U.S. defenses are not being tested 

using test assets representative of many highly capable and proliferated threat torpedoes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to deliver to the congressional defense committees not later than March 

1, 2019, a plan for the use of threat-representative surrogates for 

torpedoes and torpedo defensive systems. For fiscal years 2020 

through 2024, the plan shall include threats being addressed, test 

and evaluation activities, budgeted funding, additional funding requirements, and the associated schedule. 

Technology and transition accelerators 

The committee recognizes the potential and benefits of the Technology and Transition Accelerators established by the Department 

of Defense. Technology accelerators, including those efforts under 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment 

and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, 

are aimed at providing opportunities for the Department to leverage public-private partnerships in order to build a network connecting national security challenges with innovators and entrepreneurs. Technology transition accelerators, like the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s Microsystem Technology Office 

Transition Accelerator and the Small Business Innovation Research program, strive to improve the business models of small 

high-tech companies and support researchers in moving technologies from concept to commercialization in order to position 

them for impact in both the defense and commercial markets. The 

committee encourages the Undersecretary of Defense for Research 

and Engineering to review these and other similar activities and 

assess their potential application to other parts of the research and 

engineering enterprise. 

Trusted and assured microelectronics 

The committee is aware of the importance of the Department of 

Defense’s long-term strategy to ensure trusted and assured supply 

120 

chains for defense systems. The committee also recognizes that the 

Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC) provides a bridge between science and technology programs and defense programs, enhancing the Department’s ability to rapidly transition microelectronics technology to the joint force. Not later than February 1, 

2019, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering 

shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on 

a strategy to optimize and formalize the technology transition process utilizing the JFAC. 

Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar 

The committee is aware of efforts undertaken by U.S. Special Operations Command to develop an ultra-low power, rapidly 

deployable radar to enhance surveillance and reconnaissance missions and to provide small team force protection in austere locations. The committee understands that the military services are exploring the utility of this capability to meet their requirements and 

looks forward to the results of their review. 

Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net System 

The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps rely on multispectral 

camouflage nets to cloak U.S. and allied weapon systems from 

enemy visual detection, radars, and sensors. Foreign detection devices such as sensors and radars now are overmatching the current 

camouflage nets and pose an imminent threat to U.S. forces. The 

committee notes the long standing success of our allied partner nations who employ mobile camouflage systems on their combat vehicles, especially within NATO and the European theater. These relatively inexpensive camouflage net systems provide enhanced signature management protection, reduce heat and temperature inside and around combat vehicles, and yield fuel savings without 

interfering with the operation of the vehicles. 

Army commanders have expressed an immediate operational 

need for mobile camouflage systems, in woodland, desert, and arctic variants in particular. The committee is aware of the Army’s ongoing operational testing of mobile camouflage systems at the National Training Center and elsewhere and encourages further acceleration of those efforts. Given the potential significant advantages 

of developing this capability, with specific interest towards enhancing interoperability, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to provide the congressional defense committees, within 90 

days of enactment of this Act, with a report which outlines the mobile camouflage system test results and the Army’s plan and 

timeline to fund development, testing, and fielding of these systems 

to the warfighter. 

Workforce and infrastructure for National Defense Strategy 

priority technologies 

The committee recognizes that the National Defense Strategy 

identified certain priority emerging technologies (for example, advanced computing, ‘‘big data’’ analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonics, and biotechnology) 

as having the potential to change the very character of war. The 

committee has followed this designation with the authorization of 

121 

investments in research within these categories within other portions of this Act. 

However, the committee urges the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to prioritize those supporting capabilities that will enable technological progress in these areas-namely, workforce and infrastructure. Too often, these supporting functions are forgotten and research suffers for lack of qualified personnel or test facilities within 

the DOD laboratories and the Major Range and Test Facility Base. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on workforce and infrastructure needs for the development of each of these priority technologies over the coming five 

years. The report should include specific shortfalls in each category, if they exist, and recommendations for legislative action if 

necessary. The report must be submitted by March 15, 2019, to the 

relevant congressional defense committees. 

(123) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environment 

Further improvements to energy security and resilience 

(sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make further 

improvements to energy security and resilience within the Department of Defense by ensuring mission assurance is prioritized in energy policy and management. Additionally, the provision would require the development of goals and metrics to assess progress when 

implementing energy resilience projects. 

Funding of study and assessment of health implications of 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in 

drinking water by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 316(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to allow funds to be transferred to 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the study and assessment of health implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 

Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 

313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 183a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the Military Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse shall be organized 

under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment. Additionally, this provision encourages the Military 

Mission Sustainment Siting Clearinghouse to prioritize pilot safety 

when evaluating energy projects. The committee understands the 

immense workload of the clearinghouse and therefore, recommends 

a $1.0 million funding increase for the Clearinghouse office as specified in the funding tables. 

Operational energy policy (sec. 314) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2926 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive operational energy policy and to promote the development and 

124 

acquisition of equipment that enhances energy security and energy 

resilience. 

Funding treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and 

perfluorooctanoic acid at State-owned and operated National Guard installations (sec. 315) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to treat perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and 

perfluorooctanoic acid in drinking water at State-owned and operated National Guard installations with several limitations. The 

provision would also authorize the National Guard access to environmental restoration funds. 

The committee notes that this provision does not reflect any intent of serve as a statement on government liability. This is a process for funding to address a very specific and severe health concern. The committee takes no stance on pending court cases between the federal government and state and local municipalities. 

The committee hopes that the lessons learned from this incident by 

all parties involved will prevent such an event from occurring in 

the future. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Reports on readiness (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) to establish a 

tracking mechanism for the number of monthly C-level upgrades or 

downgrades by a unit commander. The provision would also separate the annex on operational contract support and make it a 

standalone annual report in order to decrease the delivery time of 

the QRRC. 

Report on cold weather capabilities and readiness of United 

States Armed Forces (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the current cold weather capabilities and readiness of the United States Armed Forces not later than 180 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Pilot programs on integration of military information support and civil affairs activities (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

commanders of the geographic combatant commands and U.S. Special Operations Command to carry out pilot programs for the integration of military information support and civil affairs activities 

in support of the theater campaign plans of such combatant command. 

The committee believes that Department of Defense civil affairs 

and military information support activities are complementary and 

are important tools to support the military objectives of the combatant commands. These efforts can be better leveraged to provide 

125 

whole of government solutions to a rapidly evolving global security 

environment. 

The committee also notes that the process for funding the execution of military information support and civil affairs activities often 

does not align with operational timelines or involves fiscal authorities that are misaligned to the purpose of the activity. The fiscal 

authority provided under this pilot program would provide a flexible and more appropriate means for funding military information 

support and civil affairs activities while also incentivizing whole of 

government solutions in support of U.S. messaging and stabilization objectives. 

Reporting on future years budgeting by subactivity group 

(sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to include in their OP–5 Justification Books the amount for 

each subactivity group as detailed in the Department of Defense’s 

future years defense program. 

The committee notes that other Justification Books, such as 

those for Procurement and Research, Development, Testing, and 

Evaluation, currently contain this information. 

Restriction on upgrades to aviation demonstration team aircraft (sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from upgrading the type, model, or series of 

aircraft used by a military service for its fixed wing aviation demonstration teams, including the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds aircraft, until the Service’s active and reserve duty squadrons and 

weapons training schools have replaced 100 percent of the existing 

type, model, and series of aircraft unless the Secretary grants a 

waiver to upgrade for the purposes of pilot safety. 

U.S. Special Operations Command civilian personnel (sec. 

334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

of the funds authorized in Operation & Maintenance, Defense-wide 

for U.S. Special Operations Command civilian personnel, not less 

than $6.2 million shall be used to fund the detail of civilian personnel to the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to support the 

Secretariat for Special Operations. 

The committee remains concerned that current civilian manpower within the ASD SOLIC is not sufficient to fulfill the ‘‘service 

secretary-like’’ responsibilities for the advocacy and oversight of 

special operations forces mandated by section 922 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328). According to a report required by section 1074 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

91), an independent manpower study by the U.S. Army Manpower 

Analysis Agency determined that a total of 64 civilian personnel 

could be required to execute the ‘‘service secretary-like’’ responsibilities required of the ASD SOLIC by law. According to the same reVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
126 

port, only 14 personnel are currently assisting the ASD SOLIC for 

the fulfillment of these responsibilities. 

The committee is concerned that the number of civilian personnel 

assigned to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) continues 

to grow, including a planned increase of 128 civilian personnel in 

fiscal year 2019. The committee notes that the establishment of the 

ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special Operations should result in administrative and oversight efficiencies and the transfer of functions 

that are more appropriately conducted by the ASD SOLIC. This 

provision is intended to facilitate the transfer of no fewer than 50 

civilian personnel from SOCOM to the ASD SOLIC for support of 

the Secretariat for Special Operations. 

Limitation on availability of funds for service-specific Defense Readiness Reporting Systems (sec. 335) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

Department of Defense funds to operate service-specific Defense 

Readiness Reporting Systems (DRRS) until the Secretary of Defense submits a resource and funding plan to eliminate service-specific DRRS. 

The committee notes that according to chapter 2 of title 10, 

United States Code, as amended by the Strom Thurmond National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105– 

261), DRRS was to be ‘‘applied uniformly throughout the Department of Defense.’’ The committee is concerned that the military 

services are not adhering to the prescribed law by having separate 

readiness reporting systems, even though they all bear the same 

name. The committee notes that since each service, with the exception of the Air Force, operates its own system separate from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff, it is difficult and 

time consuming to capture a real-time, accurate readiness rating. 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 348(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) by inserting ‘‘shredded or’’ before 

‘‘melted and repurposed’’. 

The committee notes the provision would grant the Army flexibility to better control costs when conducting scheduled demilitarizing of surplus firearms. 

Limitation on availability of funds for establishment of additional specialized undergraduate pilot training facility 

(sec. 337) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funds to 

establish a new specialized undergraduate pilot training location 

until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a prescribed certification. The provision would also require the Secretary of the Air 

Force to submit a report on specialized undergraduate pilot training production, resourcing, and locations. 

127 

Scope of authority for restoration of land due to mishap 

(sec. 338) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2691 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify vehicle crashes 

must meet the regulations of the Federal department with administrative jurisdictions of the affected land. 

Redesignation of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) 

(sec. 339) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 

Utah Test and Training Range located in northwestern Utah and 

eastern Nevada to be redesignated. 

Subtitle E—Logistics and Sustainment 

Limitation on modifications to Navy Facilities Sustainment, 

Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) structure and 

mechanism (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of the Navy from making any modifications to the existing Navy Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 

(FSRM) structure until 90 days after providing notice of the proposed FSRM modification to the congressional defense committees. 

Budget Items 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $51.3 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.3 billion was for SAG 411 

Security Programs. 

The committee notes that United States Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 

$14.3 million for SAG 411 Security Programs for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. 

Army marketing and advertising reduction 

The budget request included $42.0 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $698.9 million was for SAG 

331 Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee continues to be concerned with the Army’s lack 

of oversight and inability to track performance metrics in its recruiting, marketing, and advertising efforts. The committee is also 

concerned by the lack of contracting professionals employed by the 

Army Marketing and Research Group and expects the Army to 

take appropriate accountability measures on those contracts that 

were awarded inappropriately. The committee notes the requested 

resources could be better aligned for other readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising. 

128 

Army Operation and Maintenance budget request for civilian pay 

The budget request included $51.3 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army. 

The Office of Inspector General released a study in March 2018 

that found the Army has under executed its civilian pay budget for 

the last 3 fiscal years, mainly due to the Army’s non-compliance 

with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of the 

Secretary of Defense guidance. 

Specifically, the Inspector General found that the adjustments 

applied to the basic compensation calculation were normally not 

permitted by OMB policy and overtime was not included in the 

Army budget request. Additionally, army officials utilized excess civilian compensation to pay for underfunded non-pay operating expenses, intentionally not hiring up to the Army’s civilian personnel 

authorizations. 

The Army under-executed the civilian pay requested in the fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget by $481.5 million, which was the 

most the Army has under-executed in the last 3 years. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million to Operation and Maintenance, Army. 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase for sensor integration 

The budget request included $56.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.4 billion was for SAG 1C1C 

Combat Communications and Electronic Warfare. 

The committee notes that United States Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of $1.7 million for SAG 1C1C Combat Communications and Electronic 

Warfare for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance. 

Enterprise information reduction 

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

Navy facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization 

increase 

The budget request included $49.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $2.0 billion was for SAG 

BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization. 

The committee notes the importance of maintaining the crucial 

facilities that support the warfighter both in the United States and 

overseas. The committee believes facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) funding is crucial to rebuilding 

and maintaining readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $406.0 

million to SAG BSM1 for FSRM. 

129 

F–35 depot component repair capability 

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $758.2 million was for SAG 11A 

Air Operations, Primary Combat Forces and Support. 

The committee remains concerned by the Not Mission Capable— 

Supply (NMC–S) rates of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. In part, 

the high NMC–S rates are due to a lack of adequate repair capacity. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a report published on October 26, 2017, titled ‘‘F–35 Aircraft 

Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Challenges Affecting Readiness and Cost Transparency’’ (GAO–18–75), ‘‘DOD does not have 

enough capacity to repair F–35 aircraft parts because the establishment of repair capabilities at the military depots is 6 years behind 

schedule’’ (page 12). The report goes on to say, ‘‘Program officials 

in part attributed these delays to the military services not providing enough funding for depot requirements; however, service officials told us the program office did not clearly identify some depot 

requirements in a timely manner necessary for the services to fund 

those requirements’’ (page 13). 

Despite the clear and obvious shortcomings in F–35 sustainment, 

the committee is not convinced that the program office and the 

Services are adequately addressing the problems, including providing adequate funding to stand up depot component repair capabilities and purchase the necessary lay-in material, both of which 

are years behind schedule. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OMAF to SAG 11A Air Operations, Primary Combat Forces 

and Support for the stand up of depot component repair capabilities. 

Air Force demolition increases 

The budget request included $42.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $2.9 billion was for SAG 

11R Real Property Maintenance. The budget request also included 

$3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 

(OMAFR), of which $120.7 million was for SAG 11R Real Property 

Maintenance. 

The committee notes the importance of Department of Defense 

infrastructure to supporting operational readiness. The committee 

is concerned, however, that the Department is not allocating proper 

resources for demolishing older buildings that are not in use but 

still require crucial resources to maintain. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $25.0 million to SAG 11R in OMAF for demolition and $2.8 million to SAG 

11R in OMAFR for demolition. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System weapons 

system sustainment 

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.8 billion was for SAG 11W 

Air Operations, Contractor Logistics Support and System Support. 

The budget request included the retirement of three E–8C Joint 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. ElseVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
130 

where in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that 

would prohibit the retirement of any E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $95.9 million in OMAF to SAG 11W Air Operations, Contractor Logistics 

Support and System Support to restore reductions associated with 

the divestment of three E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

Air Force weapon system sustainment increases 

The budget request included $42.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.8 billion was for SAG 

11W Contractor Logistics Support and System Support. The budget 

request also included $3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, 

Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which $241.2 million was for SAG 

11W Contractor Logistics Support and System Support. 

The committee notes the importance of weapon system 

sustainment (WSS) to ensure the Air Force’s crucial weapon systems that support the warfighter are at the highest readiness rating possible. The committee notes that the Air Force has additional 

execution capability to bring WSS to 100 percent for the active 

component and 91 percent for the reserve component. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends increases of $550.0 million to SAG 11W Contractor Logistics Support and System Support 

OMAF for WSS and $52.0 million to SAG 11W Contractor Logistics 

Support and System Support in OMAFR for WSS. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System flight hours 

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $4.4 billion was for SAG 11Y 

Air Operations, Flying Hour Program. 

The budget request included the retirement of three E–8C Joint 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that 

would prohibit the retirement of any E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in OMAF to SAG 11Y Air Operations, Flying Hour Program 

to restore flying hour reductions associated with the divestment of 

three E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

Deployable airbase systems 

The budget request included $42.1 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force. 

As part of its strategic approach for addressing long-term strategic competition with China and Russia, the National Defense 

Strategy calls for building a more lethal force, including investments in forward force maneuver, posture resilience, and resilient 

and agile logistics. The objectives of these investments are to ensure that U.S. forces can ‘‘deploy, survive, operate, maneuver, and 

regenerate in all domains while under attack’’ and conduct ‘‘logistics sustainment while under persistent multi-domain attack.’’ 

Meeting these objectives will require a transition ‘‘from large, centralized, unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient, 

adaptive basing that include active and passive defenses’’ as well 

as an emphasis on ‘‘prepositioned forward stocks and munitions, 

131 

strategic mobility assets,’’ and ‘‘distributed logistics and maintenance.’’ 

Consistent with the priorities set forth in the National Defense 

Strategy, the committee has fully supported resiliency efforts such 

as the prepositioning of European contingency air operations set 

deployable airbase Systems, which is part of the European Deterrence Initiative, to complement and enhance the theater-wide response capability of the U.S. Air Force in Europe. 

However, the committee is concerned that the appropriate level 

of investment in similar resiliency efforts in the Indo-Pacific region 

has not materialized. U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific region 

remains heavily concentrated in Northeast Asia within range of 

China’s advanced arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, posing a 

significant risk to forward-stationed forces, to the ability of the 

joint force to execute the contingency plans of the Department of 

Defense, and to the credibility of U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific 

region. 

As a result, Admiral Harry Harris, Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Command (PACOM), identified force posture initiatives focused on 

resiliency as critical requirements in his letter to the committee of 

February 22, 2018, concerning PACOM’s unfunded priority list and 

in his testimony to the committee on March 15, 2018. 

Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of seven 

deployable airbase systems in fiscal year 2019 to be prepositioned 

forward in the PACOM area of responsibility in order to support 

the priorities of the National Defense Strategy and PACOM’s ‘‘resiliency’’ and ‘‘agile logistics’’ force posture initiatives, as well as to 

enhance the credible combat power of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific region. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $156.8 

million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System personnel 

The budget request included $6.4 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $2.6 billion was for 

SAG 11F Aircraft Operations. 

The budget request included the retirement of three E–8C Joint 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. Included in the divestment is a cost of $1.6 million and 16 Full Time 

Employees. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a 

provision that would prohibit the retirement of any E–8C JSTARS 

aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million 

in OMANG to SAG 11F Aircraft Operations to restore the cuts associated with the divestment of three E–8C JSTARS aircraft. 

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

The budget request included $6.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $988.3 million 

was for SAG 11Z Base Support. 

The committee continues to support the Air Force’s environmental services efforts to remediate and cleanup per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

132 

Accordingly, as requested by the Air Force, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in OMANG to SAG 11Z for 

environmental compliance to remediate and cleanup PFAS. 

The committee notes a matching amount of $11.0 million will be 

decreased in the tables from Environmental Restoration, Air Force 

SAG 42G to reflect the transfer. 

Plan for incorporating logistics sustainment under attack 

into war games 

The budget request included $28.6 million in Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) for SAG 1PL1 Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. 

The committee recognizes that the National Defense Strategy’s 

focus on near-peer adversaries fundamentally challenges long-held 

assumptions around uncontested logistics sustainment. The committee urges the Department of Defense to incorporate appropriate 

and realistic assumptions around logistics and transportation into 

operational war gaming. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to integrate 

contested logistics and offset technologies into exercises carried out 

by the military departments. These exercises should include an 

identification of common assumptions for logistics sustainment 

based on joint and individual recommendations of United States 

Transportation Command and of the military departments. It is 

also important to include a method for capturing lessons learned 

and providing feedback to the Joint Staff and military departments 

following the completion of these exercises. Where possible, the 

committee encourages the inclusion of commercial sector partners 

critical to logistics and sustainment in these wargames. 

Further, the committee is supportive of the Department of Defense’s plans to hold a joint table-top exercise to specifically evaluate the effects of energy denial on the generation, deployment, employment, and sustainment of combat forces. This joint table-top 

exercise for a scenario in the Pacific theater will be designed to 

thoroughly examine multiple seams and the challenges associated 

with delivery of energy over the last tactical mile. Given the fact 

that power and energy are increasingly essential to the employment of military capabilities, and new technologies identified in the 

National Defense Strategy, the committee recognizes and strongly 

supports the Department’s efforts to plan this exercise and strongly 

encourages the Department to continue to comprehensively assess 

the impacts of operating in an energy denied or restricted environment. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in OMDW to SAG 1PL1 Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Defense Security Service 

The budget request includes $789.2 million in Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Defense Security Service (DSS). 

The committee notes that DSS has identified shortfalls in critical 

positions that are focused on the protection of classified information, technologies, and material in the hands of cleared industry. 

133 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.6 million in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 129 additional civilian full time equivalent positions to support DSS efforts 

to protect classified information, technologies, and material in the 

hands of cleared industry. 

Personnel security background investigations 

The budget request includes $789.2 million in Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTE Defense Security Service (DSS). 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed DSS to undertake an additional mission of background investigations and 

personnel security for Department of Defense personnel. This transition will require dedicated resources to ensure the smooth transfer of responsibilities, and to bridge the gap between the Department of Defense and the National Background Investigations Bureau as the transfer takes place. The addition of this mission will 

levy an additional duty on an already heavily-taxed Defense Security Service, with broad responsibilities across the defense industrial base. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million to OMDW, for SAG 4GTE to support DSS efforts to establish 

these capabilities, which may be deployed toward transition-focused workforce or developing supporting analytic tools, as approved by the security executive agent, as necessary. 

Funding for impact aid 

The budget request included $2.89 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTJ) for the operations of the Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount authorized to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from the budget 

request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels 

are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............... +40.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .............................. +10.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +50.0 

Center for Disease Control study increase 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN). 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), required the Office of the Secretary of Defense to conduct a Center for Disease Control (CDC) nationwide 

health study on per- and polyfluoroalkyl contamination in drinking 

water. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

continue the CDC health study. 

134 

Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse increase 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $1.6 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse. 

The committee continues to support the mission of the office. 

However, the committee is also concerned that DOD has not allocated sufficient resources to the office given its workload and high 

number of projects. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD Siting Clearinghouse. The committee encourages the Clearinghouse to make pilot safety a top priority and to continue to ensure that construction projects do not 

significantly compromise flight operations without appropriate 

mitigating action. 

Defense Environmental International Cooperation program 

increase 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which no funds were for the Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC) program. 

The committee continues to note that the Army National Guard 

and other military units are frequently called upon to respond to 

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) crises around 

the world. The DEIC program enables the Army National Guard to 

share best practices and lessons learned from its own HA/DR missions with U.S. allies. This important program promotes and develops allied HA/DR capability for a relatively small amount of money. 

For example, given current readiness challenges within the 

United States Southern Command and its limited bandwidth to respond to HA/DR missions, the Army National Guard has used the 

DEIC program to provide training and capability development to 

countries within the region to remove debris and otherwise respond 

in the event of an earthquake or hurricane. The committee continues to support the DEIC program and disagrees with DOD’s intent to terminate a low-cost and useful training program for the 

Army National Guard. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to SAG 4GTN for DEIC. 

Department of Defense emerging contaminants increase 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $964,000 was for Department of Defense (DOD) emerging contaminants. 

The committee continues to support the mission of the office to 

study, analyze and evaluate threats to warfighters and their families. However, the committee is also concerned that DOD has not 

allocated enough resources to the office given its workload and the 

likelihood that DOD will have to address an increasing number of 

emerging contaminants in the future-for example, 1,4 Dioxane, 

Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, and 1,2,3- Trichloropropane-much 

135 

like it has with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sources of 

drinking water. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD emerging contaminants. 

Department of Defense environmental resiliency increase 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which only $743,000 was for Department 

of Defense (DOD) environmental resiliency efforts. 

The committee continues to support the mission of the office to 

study, analyze, evaluate, and provide technical support to 

warfighters and installations as environmental challenges continue 

to cost DOD significant resources and readiness. However, the committee is also concerned that DOD has not allocated enough resources to the office given its workload and the likelihood that 

DOD will have to address environmental resilience challenges. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to SAG 4GTN for DOD environmental resiliency efforts. 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $3.5 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD rewards 

program has been hampered by historical under-execution. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD rewards program. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $75.0 million was for the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). 

The committee notes that encroachment resulting from incompatible development and loss of habitat continues to pose a major longterm threat to readiness and to the viability of military installations, ranges, and airspace throughout the country. REPI involves 

partnerships between the Department of Defense (DOD), state and 

local governments, and conservation organizations to share the 

costs of acquiring protective easements from willing landowners. 

The committee continues to support the mission of REPI and believes the program has proven to be highly effective in addressing 

encroachment. The committee supports the Department’s evaluation of REPI to ‘‘protect mission capability by cost-sharing the longterm protection of high-value habitat and limiting incompatible 

land uses around DOD ranges and installations’’ and ‘‘help avoid 

more expensive costs, such as the need for training workarounds 

or segmentation and future military construction to modify or relocate training assets to less-restricted locations,’’ as stated in the 

President’s 2019 budget. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Department continues to underfund REPI despite its success to date and the high 

136 

degree of leverage from partner contributions. Additionally, the Department has expressed concerns about the growing need to protect 

key installations, ranges, and airspace, yet has failed to match 

those concerns with adequate resources. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to SAG 4GTN for REPI and strongly encourages the Department to reflect in future REPI budget requests the urgency of the 

problem of encroachment and the success REPI has provided in addressing that problem. 

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

The budget request included $296.8 million in Environmental 

Restoration, Air Force. The committee continues to support the Air 

Force’s environmental services efforts to remediate and cleanup 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

Accordingly, as requested by the Air Force, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in Environmental Restoration, 

Air Force to SAG 042G for environmental compliance to remediate 

and cleanup PFAS. 

The committee notes a matching amount of $11.0 million will be 

increased in the tables to Air National Guard SAG 11Z Base Support to reflect the transfer. 

Foreign currency fluctuations 

The budget request included $199.5 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance. 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered. Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $267.0 million for 

FCF. 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps increase 

The budget request included $80.2 billion in Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, of which $138.3 million was for Junior 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC). 

The committee believes JROTC programs are an important program for the nation and have been historically underfunded by the 

Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.48 million in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs. 

Air Force Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup 

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed Operation and Maintenance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Air Force for the 

cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at certain National 

Guard locations. 

137 

Air National Guard Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances 

cleanup 

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed Operation and Maintenance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Air National 

Guard for the cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at 

certain National Guard locations. 

Army Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup 

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed Operation and Maintenance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Army for the 

cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at certain National 

Guard locations. 

Navy Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup 

The budget request did not include funding in Undistributed Operation and Maintenance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to Undistributed Operation and Maintenance, Navy for the 

cleanup of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances at certain National 

Guard locations. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force runway infrastructure 

The committee believes that the Air Force’s physical runway infrastructure is an essential component of the readiness of U.S. 

operational and strategic forces. The committee believes that the 

maintenance of such assets is critical to launching aircraft quickly 

and effectively across a variety of mission areas. The committee is 

concerned by multiple examples where the Air Force has yet to or 

is addressing these requirements without urgency. 

In particular, the committee notes the continued operation of 

Offutt Air Force Base, the 55th Air Wing, and the operations at 

U.S. Strategic Command are essential to America’s continued national security. As such, the committee believes the current effort 

to design and execute a planned repair or rebuild of the runway is 

critical, and should be executed with the utmost speed, resourcing, 

and diligence. In addition, the committee notes the Little Rock Air 

Force Base provides a unique and crucial capability, serving as the 

nation’s tactical airlift ‘‘Center of Excellence.’’ The continued successful operation of Little Rock Air Force Base is contingent on 

having a fully functioning runway, and the committee similarly 

highlights the importance of its expeditious completion. 

The committee is concerned the Air Force lacks an overall runway infrastructure plan to address its ongoing runway maintenance issues, and if it is not addressed, failing runways will lead 

to a direct impact on operational readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to conduct an assessment and provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2019, detailing 

138 

the operational requirements for Air Force airfields in addition to 

the state of airfields where runway degradation currently poses a 

threat to operations, as well as installations where such degradation threatens operations in the five and ten year time frames. The 

briefing shall include the operational requirement for airfields, an 

assessment of the impact to operations, cost to repair, cost to replace, remaining useful life, and narrative on the required daily 

maintenance to ensure the runway is acceptable for full operations 

at the installation, and any challenges with infrastructure acquisition methods and processes. The briefing shall also include the 

operational impact if the respective runway became inoperable due 

to a major degradation incident, such as a crack or fracture resulting from lack of maintenance and repair. Finally, the briefing shall 

include a plan to address any shortfalls associated with the Air 

Force’s runway infrastructure. 

If required, a classified annex may accompany the unclassified 

briefing. 

All services marketing audit 

The committee notes the importance of effective marketing and 

recruiting efforts to ensure adequate end strength and technical capabilities of the military services. The committee notes that in 

2016, the U.S. Army Audit Agency (AAA) began two internal audits 

of the Army Marketing and Research Group (AMRG), both of which 

recently concluded. The committee understands that the audits indicate that the AMRG wasted a significant amount of money on ineffective marketing programs. 

Given the results of the AAA audits of the AMRG, the committee 

is concerned that similar problems may exist in the other Services’ 

marketing organizations. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to engage the Naval Audit Service and the 

Secretary of the Air Force to engage the Air Force Audit Agency 

to undertake similar individual audits of the Navy, Marine Corps, 

and Air Force marketing groups and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2019. At 

a minimum, the report shall include: (1) The effectiveness of advertising programs in the different Services at recruiting and retaining candidates; (2) An analysis of how efficiently the Services’ advertising organizations spend their money; (3) Any best practices 

that can be shared between the Services to ensure better advertising practices; and (4) Any additional areas of concern that the 

auditing agencies deem appropriate. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to conduct a review of the final audits upon their 

release and submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 

April 1, 2019. 

Ammunition plant reform and stockpile of explosives 

The committee is concerned that modernization project delays at 

Holston Army Ammunition Plant may have created a temporary 

over reliance on foreign sources for trinitrotoluene (TNT) as it relates to ammunition and munitions production. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department to begin domestic production 

139 

of insensitive munitions explosives (IMX) as soon as possible in 

order to improve the posture of the ammunition production industrial base and restore war reserve stockpiles. Additionally, the committee encourages the Department to explore any appropriate use 

of the Defense Production Act as it relates to any strategic stockpiling of TNT and IMX. 

The committee commends the Department of the Army on its 

continued efforts to make the organic Government Owned Contractor Operated ammunition production facilities more competitive, efficient, and cost-effective through constant reforms. While 

progress has been made, there are still areas upon which costs and 

process can be improved through further reform in order to reduce 

overhead. The committee encourages the Department to continue to 

work with industry for further and appropriate reforms. For example, the committee notes that all Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support contracts are not identical with respect to how 

revenues are treated at different facilities. The committee encourages the Department to standardize such contracts to the maximum extent practicable. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than September 1, 2018, on initiatives the Department plans to 

take in order to make ammunition production facilities more competitive and efficient. 

Arctic search and rescue 

The committee is aware that growing international interest and 

changing environmental conditions in the Arctic have led to increased commercial and governmental activity in the High North. 

With this steady surge, the committee remains concerned by the 

limited capabilities of the United States to conduct search-and-rescue operations throughout the Arctic region. The committee notes 

that the Department of Defense’s Report to Congress on Strategy 

to Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic 

Region, a report required in section 1068 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public-Law 114–92), identified the need for additional personnel recovery capability in this region. Specifically, the report calls for ‘‘forward-deployed/based assets in a sustainable location and/or rapidly deployable air drop response/sustainment packages suitable to remote land, cold water, 

or ice pack operating environments.’’ 

The committee understands that the 176th Wing of the Alaska 

National Guard is the closest dedicated response force with the 

only refueling capability to respond to a search-and-rescue incident 

in the Arctic. The unit currently possesses two air-dropped, 

palletized Arctic Sustainment Packages (ASPs) to enable the survival of 50 individuals for 3 or more days in extreme Arctic conditions. The ASP is rapidly deployable over varied terrain, and allows 

personnel to survive and operate in the High North. Each ASP requires considerable resources for sustainability, demanding 500 

man-hours to re-pack ASPs after testing and to continually keep 

contents viable. In light of the increased activity in this region, the 

committee believes that this capability could benefit from addiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
140 

tional sustainment funding to maintain the two existing ASPs, and 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to prioritize its resourcing. 

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

The committee understands that the Army intends to establish 

six Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFAB) for the purpose of 

providing geographic combatant commanders with a capability to 

train, advise, and assist foreign security partners. The committee 

notes that U.S. Africa Command does not currently have assigned 

forces to support requirements within its area of responsibility and 

relies on forces allocated through the Global Force Management 

process. 

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, no later 

than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to submit 

to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the advisability and feasibility of assigning an SFAB on an enduring 

basis to U.S. Africa Command for the purpose of supporting the security cooperation activities of the Command. The assessment shall 

also include a comparison of the relative merits of utilizing an 

SFAB to support security cooperation activities as compared to 

other conventional Army units, including a Brigade Combat Team, 

and Special Operations Forces. 

Assessment of Department of Defense installation management 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

maintains over 550,000 facilities on about 28 million acres with an 

estimated plant replacement value of about $830.0 billion. The 

committee understands that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has had DOD’s defense support infrastructure portfolio on 

its high-risk list since 1997 due in part to the large financial commitment needed to maintain this vast portfolio, and DOD’s continuing holding of unneeded real property assets and chronic 

underfunding of facilities sustainment. 

The committee is concerned with the financial commitment needed to maintain all of these facilities when DOD believes so many 

are excess to need. Prior GAO reports raise questions about the effectiveness of DOD’s real property assets management. The report 

from GAO entitled, ‘‘Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete 

Information and a Strategy to Guide its Disposal Efforts’’’ (GAO– 

11–814) found DOD had utilization rate data for only 46 percent 

of its facilities and no strategy for disposing of excess facilities after 

the fiscal year 2013 end of its demolition program. GAO also found 

that DOD was considering a broader approach to facilities management, including consolidation where possible. Yet in the September 

2014 report, ‘‘Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve Its 

Efforts to Identify Unutilized and Underutilized Facilities’’’ (GAO– 

14–538), GAO reported that DOD had only improved its facilities 

utilization data from 46 percent of facilities to 53 percent. 

Knowing the utilization of existing facilities is an important prerequisite to effective consolidation. In the June 2015 report ‘‘Underutilized Facilities: DOD and GSA Information Sharing May Enhance Opportunities to Use Space at Military Installations’’’ (GAO– 

141 

15–346), GAO reported that neither DOD nor the General Services 

Administration had a process by which federal agencies could be 

housed in excess DOD space, a practice that permits the host installation to avoid the utilities and maintenance costs they would 

have otherwise incurred in maintaining these vacant facilities, thus 

freeing up funds for maintaining facilities actually being used by 

DOD organizations. In the March 2016 report, ‘‘Defense Infrastructure: More Accurate Data Would Allow DOD to Improve the Tracking, Management, and Security of Its Leased Facilities’’’ (GAO–16– 

101), GAO found that DOD is continuing to lease commercial administrative space within 50 miles of installations identified for 

force structure reductions three years earlier. 

Until 2011, GAO cited chronic underfunding of facilities 

sustainment as a reason for defense support infrastructure’s inclusion on the high-risk list. At that time, GAO concluded that DOD 

had increased sustainment investment sufficiently and accordingly 

removed sustainment from the high-risk list. However, since then, 

DOD has reported it is again underfunding sustainment, raising 

questions about the mission capability of some of its facilities since 

such underfunding can lead to facilities not being in good working 

order and to life, health, and safety concerns. 

The committee believes it is critical that DOD make cost effective 

decisions about how to manage this large facilities portfolio including excess facilities by appropriately targeting sustainment funds 

and disposing of or effectively reusing excess facilities where possible. Moreover, nothing prevents DOD from disposing of some excess facilities using authorities it already has. Even in the absence 

of a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, DOD should effectively use all available and existing authorities to appropriately 

manage this facilities portfolio. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives with the President’s fiscal year 2020 

budget submission. The Secretary’s report should address, but not 

be limited to the following: (1) What progress, if any, the military 

departments have made since the 2013 planned end of the demolition program in disposing of excess facilities and by what means 

other than BRAC; (2) How the military services prioritize facilities 

for disposal and the Services’ plans for disposal other than through 

BRAC through the end of the current future years defense program; (3) How DOD and the military services target facilities maintenance funds to ensure the highest priority facilities are properly 

maintained over excess facilities; (4) DOD’s and the military services’ long term strategy for ensuring that excess property is disposed other than through BRAC and how facilities maintenance 

funds can be more effectively used; (5) What progress, if any, the 

military services have made in moving from leased space to excess 

owned space on installations and otherwise granting space to nonDOD tenants when such tenancy is consistent with the installation’s military mission. 

The committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Energy, Installations, and Environment to brief the congresVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
142 

sional defense committees on the findings of the report not later 

than January 30, 2019. 

Assessment of hybrid electric drive performance 

The committee notes the Navy’s operational energy program includes the installation of a Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) propulsion 

system on the USS Truxton. The committee understands the Navy 

anticipates the USS Truxton installation of the HED should pay for 

itself in 6 to 13 years. 

The committee is interested in how the Navy will test, evaluate, 

and measure the at-sea performance and effectiveness of the HED 

on USS Truxton. If the Navy intends to make an informed decision 

about whether to program future HED installations, the committee 

believes the Navy must ensure such decisions are based on rigorous 

analysis of quantitative data collected from the USS Truxton. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

conduct a comprehensive test and evaluation assessment of the 

HED installation on the USS Truxton. The assessment may include 

a classified annex. The assessment shall include, but not be limited 

to: (1) The HED system use and related effects monitoring using 

the Navy Energy Usage System; (2) Daily operational reports (e.g., 

OPREP–5) related to HED and its performance; (3) A comparison 

of two DDG–51 class ships (HED and non-HED) while the ships 

are executing similar mission sets, both training cycle and deployment (preferably a DDG flight IIA within the same strike group or 

other task group); (4) Metrics that quantitatively evaluate and compare transit operations, training operations, presence operations, 

operational missions, enhanced mission effectiveness, reduced 

logistical burdens and mission risk, and increased capability and 

resilience; (5) An analysis of operating costs compared to ships in 

the same class without HED for the same time period; (6) Updated 

investment planned for HED in the future years defense program; 

and (7) Any other elements the Secretary deems appropriate. 

The assessment shall be conducted with a report delivered to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States 

no later than January 1, 2020. The report shall describe the findings of each of the seven prescribed assessment areas. Within 60 

days after receiving the plan, the Comptroller General shall submit 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives an evaluation of the report and assessment. 

Battery storage and safety programs clarification 

The committee strongly supports the continuation of funding to 

the Department of Navy and the Office of Naval Research in the 

advancement of its battery storage and safety programs to support 

force protection and applied research. The committee notes that for 

the purposes of clarifying the term ‘‘battery storage and safety’’, the 

committee means those battery storage and safety technologies and 

advancements which provide energy resilience to the Department 

of Defense. The committee also notes that in section 101, title 10, 

United States Code, the term ‘‘energy resilience’’ means the ability 

to avoid, prepare for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions in order to ensure enVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
143 

ergy availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance and readiness, and other mission essential operations related to readiness, and to execute or rapidly reestablish mission essential requirements. 

Battery storage technology 

The committee recognizes that battery storage technology is a 

vital component in micro-grid resiliency and energy security and 

independence. The committee seeks further information regarding 

the Department of Energy’s advanced research and development efforts to isolate and protect domestic micro-grids from potential 

cyber-attacks through self-sustaining energy infrastructure. The 

Department of Energy has recognized the importance of shielding 

the nation’s critical energy infrastructure from cyber-attacks. 

Emerging hybrid technologies are being used to develop micro-grids 

that can insulate targeted areas from cyber threats. The committee 

recognizes that integrating battery storage as an alternative for 

high-voltage transmission lines enhances the ability for Department of Defense facilities to access a consistent energy source and 

continue operations. 

Briefing on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry PFAS report 

The committee understands that the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR) is in the process of completing toxicological profiles for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfiuorooctane suifonic 

acid (PFOS), perfiuorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorohexane 

suifonic acid (PFHxS) in drinking water, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 9601 et seq. The contamination of the water supply resulting from 

the leeching of these chemicals used in the military’s firefighting 

foam in ground water impacts the readiness of our troops and the 

health of our active duty and reserve service members and their 

families. In order to address the readiness issues associated with 

this contamination, the committee requests a briefing on this 

ATSDR report within thirty days. 

Building energy resilience on military installations 

The committee strongly supports recent efforts by the Army to 

increase its energy resilience with a 50 megawatt multi-fuel generation facility on Schofield Barracks. The committee notes the facility will be able to provide the Army the first right to power, a 

black start capability, and 100 percent of its operational requirements for Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield and Field Station Kunia in the event of an intentional or unintentional power 

outage. Notably, the power plant will have a minimum five days 

of fuel on site and a 30 day fuel supply available on the island of 

Oahu. Not only do these kind of cooperative agreements provide 

the Army the ability to improve its installations without any capital investments of its own, they also provide a combat capability 

that improves readiness. 

Due to its strategic location, the power facility remains above the 

tsunami strike zone which not only directly benefits the Army, but 

also will enhance the grid resilience and provide an energy security 

144 

benefit to the local community and medical services. Notably, it is 

the only current baseload power generation facility on the island of 

Oahu that is located above a tsunami strike zone. Another notable 

and successful Army example of building energy resilience on its 

military installations, is Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain 

Division, which now has the ability to power its installation for 

over a month off the grid in the event of an outage. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Defense to pursue similar 

cooperative agreements, particularly in locations that face highcosts of energy like Alaska and Hawaii. 

The committee particularly encourages distributed energy 

projects that are strategically located in order to provide energy security and resilience to military installations. The use of non-Department or third party financing mechanisms, such as power purchase agreements and energy savings performance contracts, to 

pursue such large-scale energy resilience projects is strongly encouraged. 

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

The Defense-wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) is the working capital fund managed by the defense agencies, and consists of 

six activity groups. Three of these activity groups are operated by 

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), two by the Defense Information Systems Agency, and one by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. These defense agencies use the DWWCF cash balance 

to cover costs for providing services and purchasing various commodities. The DWWCF is reimbursed through charges to customers, including overhead and other fees. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages working capital 

funds, which were established to satisfy recurring DOD requirements using a businesslike buyer-and-seller approach. According to 

DOD’s Financial Management Regulation, the goal of the DWWCF 

is to remain revenue-neutral, allowing the fund to break even over 

time. As of the end of fiscal year 2017, the DWWCF held a cash 

balance of about $3.0 billion. 

The committee is interested in understanding the activities funded through the DWWCF, how rate structures are determined, and 

options for achieving efficiencies. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate: (1) The activities the defense agencies fund through overhead charges and fees collected from customers, and how these activities differ from those funded through 

annual appropriations; (2) Methods used to determine the rate 

structure of overhead charges and fees; and (3) Options, if any, that 

DOD has considered to adjust its approach to managing overhead 

charges and fees to achieve greater efficiencies or reduce costs. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the 

Senate not later than April 15, 2019, with a final report to follow. 

Congressional notification of incidents 

The committee is concerned that the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and the military departments have not promptly and conVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
145 

sistently notified the committee of the occurrence of significant incidents and accidents. While certain military departments have 

routinely sent timely notifications to the committee, there has often 

been a lack of even basic information communicated when troubling events have occurred. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to establish 

a rigorous, well-defined process and system to provide notifications 

to the committee for basic and initial reporting of incidents such 

as, but not limited to: class A and B mishaps for aircraft, ships and 

submarines, training casualties and accidents, safety stand downs 

and operational pauses, relief of command, significant explosions 

and fires at installations, and significant security barrier breaches. 

Corrosion prevention and oversight 

The committee established Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (CPO) in part to unify and strengthen Department of Defense 

(DOD) efforts to address corrosion and its impacts on our military 

weapon systems and infrastructure. Prior to CPO, DOD corrosion 

prevention and control efforts were ineffective, inefficient and 

lacked coordination across the military services. The critical role 

CPO serves in this regard is essential as DOD strives to restore 

full spectrum readiness and sustain its weapons and installations. 

The committee strongly supports DOD’s March 2018 assessment 

that reaffirms the value of CPO and strongly recommends that ‘‘the 

CPO office be retained in order to continue an impressive legacy of 

nearly 15 years of achieving significant cost savings and improvements in the availability of department-wide weapons systems, 

equipment and infrastructure, while enabling and partnering with 

the services and industry to continually improve corrosion reduction efforts.’’ 

The committee notes that DOD’s report and recommendation 

make apparent that the authorities accorded CPO remain valid. 

For example, in the assessment, DOD cites that CPO has achieved 

a $2.0 billion reduction in the annual cost of corrosion, increased 

the average availability of aircraft, ships and ground vehicles by 10 

percent, decreased the overall percentage of corrosion-related maintenance by 4 percent, all while reducing duplication and bureaucracy throughout DOD. 

The committee is nevertheless concerned that efforts to reorganize some DOD activities and considerations to restructure CPO 

put at risk the office’s ability to sustain and build upon its impressive record of success. Were the status of the office to significantly 

erode, DOD would likely revert back to the fragmented and ineffective approach to corrosion reduction that prompted the creation of 

CPO in the first place. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

United States to conduct a thorough review of the restructured 

CPO and submit to the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report no later than December 1, 2018 that evaluates the extent the restructure aligns 

with the original intent of section 2228, title 10, United States 

Code, to make certain that the restructured CPO has the ability to 

operate across Department-wide activities such as research and development, operation and maintenance, sustainment and acquisiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
146 

tion for weapon systems and infrastructure, as well as to serve as 

an overarching facilitator and integrator across the various military departments. Additionally, the report will evaluate the extent 

to which the restructure will allow CPO to sustain and build upon 

its successes in cost reduction, increases in asset availability, and 

reduction in duplication of critical corrosion prevention and mitigation activities. 

Cost benefit analysis of alternative-fueled vehicles and infrastructure 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

maintains an inventory of 177,000 owned and leased nontactical 

vehicles, including passenger, trucks and other vehicles, at a cost 

of $874.0 million per year, and that increased use of alternative 

fueled vehicles (AFVs) would reduce petroleum consumption and 

costs. The committee also notes that AFVs by definition have a 

wide range of fuel sources from natural gas, hydrogen, coal, ethanol 

and electricity. Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) are 

one mechanism to allow the purchase or lease of non-tactical AFVs 

and associated fueling and charging infrastructure. ESPCs are 

third-party financed contracts to achieve energy savings and benefits ancillary to that purpose, such as reduced operation and maintenance costs. While ESPC authority under 42 U.S.C. 8287 is currently limited to energy savings measures applied to federal buildings and facilities, the committee notes that such authority could 

also be applied to AFVs and associated infrastructure. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Director, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis on the 

business case for entering into ESPC agreements to support the 

use of AFVs and the fueling or charging infrastructure necessary 

for alternative fueled vehicles, and to provide a briefing on the results of that analysis within 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Cost benefit analysis on conducting organic depot level 

maintenance on the joint surveillance target attack 

radar system 

The committee notes that the current depot maintenance program for the joint surveillance target attack radar system 

(JSTARS), currently conducted by a private contractor, has experienced significant delays in maintenance cycles. Contracted maintenance has also failed to meet the Air Force’s requirement to have 

no more than three aircraft in depot to meet operational needs. The 

contractor averaged six aircraft in depot during calendar year 2017. 

The Air Force was unable to perform 179 sorties from November 

2016 to October 2017, including 8,500 Ready Aircrew Program 

events, which reduced combat effectiveness. This diminished the 

Air Force’s ability to meet combatant command (COCOM) mission 

requirements and Global Response Force taskings. In addition, the 

committee is concerned that the Air Force was unable to support 

seven sorties in support of COCOMs, and the Joint Staff denied requests for JSTARS support due to low aircraft availability. As a result of low aircraft availability forecast, the total Global Force 

147 

Management Allocation Plan offering was reduced for fiscal year 

2018. 

The committee believes that cost and maintenance efficiencies 

could be achieved by returning depot maintenance responsibilities 

to the Air Force organic industrial base. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees a report that describes and assesses the 

costs and benefits to the Air Force of conducting depot-level maintenance on the JSTARS platform at an organic depot in comparison 

to a private contractor, no later than September 30, 2018. 

Depot best practices 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

has issued several reports on challenges experienced at the organic 

maintenance depots, including challenges pertaining to deteriorating equipment and facility condition, filling critical personnel 

skills, meeting service repair needs, and excesses in carryover of 

workload. These problems can lead to delays in the maintenance of 

weapon systems that ultimately affect readiness by impeding the 

services’ ability to conduct training and provide forces to perform 

missions around the world. Despite these challenges, it is not clear 

the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) is assessing 

and, to the extent possible, mitigating the risk of maintenance 

delays when identifying its depot workload requirements. 

The committee further notes that while DOD has developed some 

initiatives that are intended to help improve its depot operations, 

such as the Navy’s Shipyard Optimization Plan and the DOD 

Maintenance Executive Steering Committee, it is not clear if DOD 

is effectively sharing and implementing best practices and lessons 

learned identified by its individual depots. Therefore, section 346 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), directed the Secretary of Defense to submit 

to the congressional defense committees a ‘‘comprehensive plan for 

the sharing of best practices for depot-level maintenance among the 

military services.’’ The committee received the Secretary’s letter response pursuant to the requirement on March 26, 2018. The committee finds that while the response describes the existence of several groups, committees, and activities related to the ‘‘enterprise 

governance framework of joint collaboration,’’ the response does not 

include a comprehensive plan for sharing of best practices for 

depot-level maintenance as required by section 346. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit a report or reports to the congressional 

defense committees, addressing: (1) To what extent are DOD and 

the services sharing and implementing best practices and lessons 

learned at individual depots with other depots; (2) To what extent 

have specific weapon systems repair activities gained benefits from 

implementation of such best practices or lessons learned; (3) To 

what extent have DOD and the services identified and quantified 

the key factors that influence whether depots complete their weapon system maintenance mission on time and shared these factors 

among themselves; (4) To what extent do DOD and the services 

make sure that depot workload requirements are generating required depot capability and capacity e.g., skilled personnel, suffiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
148 

ciency in facilities and equipment, assured availability of supplies 

and materials or other relevant factors and, as appropriate, share 

best practices and lessons learned among themselves; (5) To what 

extent do DOD and the services identify risk to meeting anticipated 

depot workload timeframes, develop mitigation strategies to address that risk, and, as appropriate, share their risk management 

strategies among themselves. 

The Comptroller General may also include other related matters 

as deemed appropriate in order to provide a comprehensive examination. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 

provide a preliminary briefing to the congressional defense committees on the Comptroller General’s evaluation not later than April 

30, 2019, with a report or reports to follow. 

Development of future fluorine-free fire fighting foams 

The committee is strongly supportive of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) plans to develop future fluorine-free fire fighting 

foams (F6). Once again this year, the committee has increased 

funding for both the Strategic Environment Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environment Security Technology 

Certification Program (ESTCP), largely in part to develop, demonstrate, and validate a fluorine-free surfactant that still meets 

military specification (MILSPEC) F–24385 and mimics the fluorocarbon surfactant performance attributes of aqueous film forming 

foam (AF3). 

While AF3 performs well against fires, highly fluorinated chemicals are highly persistent long after their use and have been associated with serious health problems, such as cancer, liver and thyroid disease, and immune system and development effects, particularly in the case of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The 

dangers of PFAS also prompted this committee to authorize DOD 

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct a 

nation-wide human health survey on the effects of PFAS in sources 

of drinking water. 

The committee is encouraged by and supportive of DOD efforts 

to reduce the use of AF3 and substitute with a perfluorooctane 

sulfonate-free firefighting foam C6. However, even short-chain C6 

may pose the same health risks as AF3 since it has been documented that C6 can pass through granulated activated charcoal 

water filters. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages DOD to use 

funding increases in SERDP and ESTCP to develop, demonstrate, 

validate and field F6. Notably, multiple countries, including NATO 

allies, use fluorine-free firefighting foam at airports, as well as the 

oil and gas industry. DOD has made encouraging process to date, 

for example, the Naval Research Laboratory has full strength basic 

tested and continues to test samples of non-Fluorine foam that 

have been identified by industry, such as silicon and oxygen combinations. Lastly, the committee strongly encourages the Department of the Navy to amend MILSPEC F–24385 to no longer require fluorine in AF3 and F6, as appropriate. 

149 

Employment of Special Operations Forces 

The committee has great interest in actions by the Department 

of Defense to respond to the priorities identified in the National 

Defense Strategy (NDS) and how they impact the readiness and 

employment of Special Operations Forces (SOF). In particular, the 

committee notes the important role of SOF in supporting counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations around the world. Almost 17 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

SOF remain in high demand by Geographic Combatant Commanders and, as a result, continue to face high operational and 

personnel tempo. In response to the stress on the force, the committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command is undertaking 

initiatives to bring SOF into compliance with Secretary of Defense 

directed deployment to dwell goals. 

The committee notes that Department of Defense has a limited 

number of SOF personnel and believes that an appropriately 

trained and prepared SOF force of sufficient size must be ready 

and available for contingency operations that may involve a nearpeer competitor as identified in the NDS. Therefore, the committee 

strongly urges the Department to review how it currently employs 

SOF in response to Geographic Combatant Commander requirements to ensure sufficient numbers of SOF are appropriately 

trained and ready to respond to contingencies across the spectrum 

of conflict, including with a near-peer competitor. 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training 

program 

The committee is aware that readiness challenges continue to 

face the Armed Forces due to budgetary constraints. The committee 

continues to recognize the value of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which allows the Armed Forces the most realistic, joint training opportunities for National Guard, Reserve, and 

Active Duty members. 

The committee values the IRT program for its low cost and high 

benefit to achieving measurable military readiness. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Defense to increase utilization of IRT projects to provide mission-essential training, 

prioritizing programs that directly support the most challenging 

and relevant training opportunities and increasing program outreach toward identifying quality training opportunities in the most 

logistically challenging geographical areas. Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited to, constructing rural roads and 

airplane runways, small building, and warehouse construction in 

remote areas, transportation of medical supplies, and military 

readiness training in the areas of engineering, health care, and 

transportation for under-served communities. 

The committee understands the IRT program offers complex and 

challenging training opportunities for domestic and international 

crises. The committee is also aware that states that utilize the IRT 

program include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, 

West Virginia, and Wyoming. 

150 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on and 

mission-essential training and that are available to active, reserve 

and National Guard forces. 

Establishment of the energy resilience project development 

and implementation office 

The committee is encouraged by the progress the Department of 

Defense has made to promote energy resilience, efficiency, and distributed energy across its military installations with limited resources and personnel to accomplish these priorities. However, the 

committee recognizes that vulnerabilities to energy supplied to 

military installations and operations place our national security at 

risk. Further, senior Department officials continue to express concern to the committee on the ability of the Department to keep 

pace with these threats and accelerate energy resilience project development due to resource constraints, the inability to retain and 

recruit qualified energy and technical professionals, and potential 

flexibility in existing authorities. 

The committee strongly supports efforts by the military departments and defense agencies to increase its energy resilience with 

targeted and prioritized decisions to procure or upgrade infrastructure, distribution systems, equipment, fuel, and energy generation 

facilities. Further, the committee strongly supports the department’s alternative financing pursuits and notes that it is uniquely 

positioned to develop energy resilience projects on its military installations to remediate risks from commercial electric and fuel 

grid disruptions. Not only do alternative financing agreements provide the department the ability to improve its installations without 

any capital investments of its own, they also provide a combat capability that improve the department’s national security and readiness posture. The committee notes that these public and private 

sector partnerships are essential to advance the department’s national security strategy, and that these partnerships should support integration of a defense workforce with science, technology, engineering, economic, and financial backgrounds to communicate 

with the private sector. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

work with the secretaries of the military departments, along with 

the defense agencies, to conduct an investigation for a central office 

to accelerate energy resilience project development and implementation. The Secretary should consider equitable representation from 

the military departments and defense agencies during the review, 

and consult with the services and defense agencies when providing 

a recommendation. The review should include, at a minimum, the 

following: (1) A review of lessons learned from existing service execution offices such as the Navy’s Resilient Energy Program Office, 

the Army’s Office of Energy Initiatives, and the Air Force’s Office 

of Energy Assurance; (2) Personnel skills, manning, and resources 

needed to establish the office; (3) The appropriate organizational 

reporting structure of such an office; (4) Strategy, mission, and performance goals the office would pursue (to include the scope of 

projects considered and funding strategy considerations); (5) Recruitment, retention, and training strategy; and (6) Legislative auVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
151 

thorities and other recommendations to consider for the establishment of an office to accelerate energy resilience project development. Lastly, the Secretary shall brief the committee on the results 

of its review not later than March 1, 2019. 

Establishment of the occupational group for federal energy 

managers 

The committee is encouraged by the progress the Department of 

Defense has made to promote energy resilience, efficiency, and distributed energy across its military installations with limited resources and personnel to accomplish these priorities. However, the 

committee recognizes that vulnerabilities to energy supplied to 

military installations and operations place our national security at 

risk. Further, senior Department officials and personnel on military installations continue to express concern to the committee on 

the ability of the Department to keep pace with these threats due 

to the inability to retain and recruit qualified energy management 

professionals with the appropriate technical skills. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

work with the Office of Personnel Management to establish an occupational group for energy management in its Handbook of Occupational Groups to ensure legislative requirements for energy efficiency, distributed energy, and energy resilience are met. At a minimum, the energy management occupational group shall allow the 

Department to meet Title 10 energy requirements, and those energy requirements found in Department of Defense Directives and 

Instructions. The Occupational Group shall include grades from 

GS–1 to GS–15, or equivalent graded positions. Lastly, the Secretary shall brief the committee on its progress not later than 

March 1, 2019. 

Guidance on utility privatization contracts 

The committee supports the conveyance of utility systems to private entities and is aware of the increased energy resilience and reliability that has resulted at installations where this has occurred, 

but notes that restrictions on operation and maintenance funds 

have slowed progress on critical projects that are required to increase energy resilience and reliability. The committee is also 

aware of efforts undertaken by the Army to encourage Army commands to use available operation and maintenance funds for utility 

infrastructure improvements associated with privatized utility systems, and encourages the Department of Defense and the other 

services to provide similar guidance to clarify and better leverage 

operation and maintenance funds for utility improvements with 

utilities privatization contracts to meet energy resilience and installation readiness requirements. 

High purity aluminum 

The committee recognizes the importance of high purity aluminum (HPA) to meet national security requirements of manufacturing and weapon system performance. HPA plays a critical role 

in defense platforms such as in the bulkheads for the F–35 and the 

advanced armor for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. HPA is also 

used to make alloys that are used in other defense and space platVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
152 

forms. The demand for HPA is expected to continue to increase as 

the Department of Defense ramps up production on key next generation air and ground platforms and the need for weight reduction 

remains a key requirement. The committee understands that the 

United States currently has only two domestic producers of HPA 

and relies on imports from Russia, the Middle East, and elsewhere 

to meet demand. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to take affirmative steps to maintain secure sources of supply for 

HPA and to consider investing in appropriate improvements to 

make the production of domestic HPA more efficient and available 

than through the traditional smelting process. 

High-energy intensity report 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) required the thenUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries responsible for 

energy, installations, and environment of the military services, to 

submit a report on efforts to achieve cost savings at military installations with high levels of energy intensity. The committee notes 

that this report is now over six months overdue. The committee 

continues to believe that energy costs in areas of high-energy intensity is a critical issue that should be addressed. Accordingly, the 

committee encourages the Under Secretary of Acquisition and 

Sustainment to promptly complete the report and submit it to the 

congressional defense committees. 

High-pressure cold spray repair 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is using 

high-pressure cold spray repair, a solid-state metal additive manufacturing technology that is capable of reapplying metal to highly 

worn or corroded metal surfaces without damaging the base metal. 

The committee understands this technology would restore the 

strength and serviceability of parts that previously would require 

replacement. The committee notes this technology could enable 

more cost-effective and timely maintenance and has been used by 

the Department of the Navy to achieve cost savings for the repair 

of critical components. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of the Navy to expand the use of this technology for the 

development of new repair processes for additional Navy components. 

Leveraging non-Department funds to address infrastructure 

maintenance backlogs and project delays 

The committee is strongly encouraged by the Department of Defense (DOD) and its efforts to improve energy resilience and security infrastructure on its installations. For example, DOD has 

turned to the use of energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) 

as one means to leverage private sector financing and investments 

which are paid back over time by DOD through measured and 

verified energy-related savings. The committee strongly encourages 

DOD to incorporate energy resilience and security measures into 

153 

its projects and contracts pursued through non-Department funding. 

The committee also recognizes that DOD has historically 

prioritized resources for its operations and weapons modernization 

over its facilities sustainment restoration and modernization 

(FSRM) accounts, which has resulted in a significant infrastructure 

maintenance backlog, including older and deteriorating facilities, 

which in turn degrades readiness and quality of life for 

warfighters. 

In order to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, increase 

the magnitude of capital improvements, costs savings, and cost 

avoidance for DOD, the committee strongly encourages the Department and its military installations to leverage its FSRM accounts, 

in combination with third-party and non-Department funding 

sources and financed energy savings projects, to maximize energy 

infrastructure investments through mechanisms like ESPCs and 

utility energy service contracts (UESC). As such, FSRM funds 

should be used for one-time payments upon the award of new 

ESPC and UESC projects and as partial payments for recurring operation and maintenance activities. 

Additionally, the committee remains concerned that DOD has 

failed to streamline delays encountered during the ESPC, UESC, 

and power purchase agreement processes, which could otherwise 

assist in decreasing the infrastructure maintenance backlog and increase installation resilience that is critical to mission assurance. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a policy to better leverage non-Department funding to address its infrastructure maintenance backlog and energy resilience 

requirements, including setting a Department performance contracting goal along with a tracking system to identify and address 

project phase bottlenecks, with a timeline goal of 18 months from 

notice of opportunity to notice of intent to award. The Secretary 

shall brief the committee on its progress no later than March 1, 

2019. 

Light emitting diodes for aviation applications 

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts by the Services and 

the Defense Logistics Agency to increase the utilization of light 

emitting diodes (LED) for aviation applications, both through retrofitting existing aircraft and requiring LEDs for exterior and interior use on new designs. In addition to their long life, high reliability, and reduced energy consumption, LEDs reduce glare and 

interference with night vision equipment. Most commercial airplanes use LEDs for navigation, position, beacon, anti-collision, 

cabin, and cargo lighting. Accordingly, the committee encourages 

the services to retrofit LEDs onto existing aircraft when they undergo modification and maintenance. The committee also encourages the services to establish LED requirements for ongoing aviation development and acquisitions, such as the Long Range Strike 

Bomber and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

M240 medium machine gun modernization 

The committee is concerned the Army may be assuming too 

much risk in the small arms industrial base with respect to the 

154 

family of M240 medium machine guns. Current funding profiles 

could lead to a potential production line shutdown. The shutdown 

of existing production lines could create significant operational impacts if requirements change. The committee notes that the budget 

request included $2.1 million for M240 production; however, no 

funding is projected for new production in fiscal year 2020 or fiscal 

year 2021. 

The committee encourages the Army to closely monitor this critical industrial base and work with the original equipment manufacturer to develop courses of action to ensure the production line remains viable and capable of supporting potential increased requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 

a briefing to the committee by September 28, 2018. This briefing 

shall include, at a minimum: (1) The projected service life of the 

current M240 inventory; (2) The Army’s plan and schedule to replace the current M240 inventory either with newer M240 models 

or an entirely new system; (3) How the Army will address increased requirements caused by growth in end strength and combat 

formations; (4) Relevant cost analysis for restarting the M240 production line after a period of dormancy; and (5) A description of the 

capacity challenges and minimum sustaining production rates with 

regard to the original equipment manufacturer. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a study to the committee by October 1, 2018, on the feasibility of transitioning the existing fleet of M240B medium machine 

guns to the lighter-weight M240L configuration. This assessment 

shall take into consideration the estimated costs associated with 

this transition to include the transition of current inventories of 

M240Bs to the M240L variant. 

Maintaining current balance of government and private 

contractors under 10 U.S.C. 2466 

The committee continues to recognize the importance of section 

2466, title 10, United States Code, in its sustainment of our military readiness. The committee continues to view core depot level 

workload as synonymous with organic workload, and core workload 

should be accomplished by government employees in facilities 

owned and operated by the United States. While the committee 

supports privatization of functions that are not inherently governmental in nature, including some depot maintenance of above core 

systems, the committee does not support the wholesale privatization of those functions necessary to ensure readiness and to defend 

the United States and our allies during periods of armed conflict. 

Depot maintenance is inherently governmental when conducted on 

mission essential weapons systems used in combat, combat support, combat service support, and combat readiness training. 

Congressional support of privatization initiatives is based on the 

achievement of cost savings to the government as a result of a competitive marketplace. 

The committee continues to see that competition, rather than privatization, may achieve the greatest degree of potential savings. To 

preserve our military readiness, the Department of Defense should 

sustain the organic capability and capacity to maintain and repair 

mission-essential equipment associated with combat, including new 

155 

weapons systems to the greatest extent possible. Finally, to ensure 

efficient use of organic maintenance and repair capacity, as well as 

the best value to the taxpayer, we believe the Department of Defense must continue to effectively utilize its logistics facilities. 

Marine Corps Base of the Future 

As noted by the Marine Corps, the January 2017 tornado resulted in ‘‘extensive damage requiring significant repair and construction’’ at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany. That challenge 

prompted an opportunity to identify inadequate command and control, a misaligned workforce, excess infrastructure, and the desire 

to have an island capability for energy resilience. 

In light of the continued deferment of facilities sustainment restoration and modernization funding by the Department, the committee is strongly supportive of the recent efforts by the Marine 

Corps to hold its inaugural Base of the Future Symposium, which 

sought collaboration from local communities, private industry, government officials and academia in order to improve installation design and services that are responsive, resilient, and improve process. The committee continues to support the concepts of increasing 

operational effectiveness, readiness, quality of life, safety and efficiency on installations while pursuing techniques and technologies 

that leverage data analytics, automation, robotics, and the internet 

of things. 

Marine Corps Policy on flame-resistant uniforms 

The committee notes the Marine Corps issues the Enhanced 

Flame Resistant Combat Ensemble (EFRCE) to deploying Marines 

and Sailors. The EFRCE is the latest upgrade to the Marine Corps’ 

Flame-Resistant Combat Ensemble inventory, updating a longsleeve shirt and trousers with a more durable and better performing flame resistant material that allows the uniform to self-extinguish reducing the incidence and severity of burn injuries. 

The committee commends the Marine Corps’ efforts to develop 

and field high performance flame resistant clothing to deploying 

Marines. However, the committee is concerned the EFRCE is only 

issued to select deploying marines and sailors. The committee believes the same high performance and flame-resistant protection 

capabilities provided by the EFRCE in combat operations could 

also be applied for domestic training and field exercises in the 

United States, if deemed operationally relevant. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide a briefing to the committee by March 1, 2019, on steps 

being taken to evaluate the EFRCE and other flame resistant combat uniforms, items to include: (1) A market survey of materials 

that could be used in a Flame Resistant (FR) Marine Corps Combat 

Utility Uniform (MCCUU) uniform; (2) A cost benefit analysis of 

issuing EFRCE or a FR MCCUU at initial entry rather than 

issuing MCCU at initial entry; (3) The near-term policy for authorizing use in appropriate field exercises and training scenarios at 

unit commander’s discretion; and (4) The advisability and feasibility of implementing a long-term fielding plan for incorporating 

the EFRCE and/or other flame resistant combat uniforms as organizational equipment in appropriate units. 

156 

Military working dogs 

As reflected in the findings of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) report 2018–81, the committee remains concerned that a lack of guidance remains, particularly for nontraditional military working dog (MWD) programs that are not directly 

supported by the 341st Training Squadron, 37th Training Wing, at 

Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in collaboration with the secretaries of the other military departments with MWD assets to fully 

implement the recommendations from DODIG report 2018–81. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in 

collaboration with the secretaries of the other military departments 

with MWD assets, to submit a report not later than 180 days after 

the enactment of this Act, that examines the status of all MWDs 

since 2013 and addresses at a minimum, the following: (1) The 

number of MWDs transferred from overseas to the United States 

for retirement; (2) The number of MWDs overseas that did not 

transfer to the United States and their ultimate disposition or destination; (3) The number of MWDs transferred to law enforcement 

agencies; (4) The number of MWDs dogs that were transferred to 

one of their handlers; (5) A description of the actions taken by the 

military to notify current or previous handlers of the opportunity 

to adopt their MWD; (6) A description of the oversight of the adoption process to ensure that MWDs are placed in appropriate settings; and (7) Examine options and potential costs of assisting 

those handlers who adopt MWDs with veterinary care for the 

MWD retirees. 

The committee urges the services to have Contractor Working 

Dog (CWD) assets operate under the same regulations as MWDs 

and recommends the services ensure such requirements are provided for all future CWD programs. 

Navy next generation small arms weapons training and 

readiness requirements 

The committee is concerned that after 5 years, the Navy has not 

yet developed a next generation, comprehensive strategy to address 

the significant small arms training shortfalls identified in the 2013 

Washington Navy Yard shooting report and subsequent shooting 

incidences. 

As noted in prior National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee understands that the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) and the Navy Strategic Systems Program (SSP) 

have successfully demonstrated an innovative synthetic small arms 

training approach capable of providing consistent, metrics-based 

proof of live-fire transfer across various skill levels for individual 

and crew-served training, while reducing ammunition and training 

time costs. NECC and SSP’s advanced human performance, cognitive, and metrics driven training approach enforces improvements in reaction time, precision under stress, and decision-making 

skills to aid long-standing Navy challenges in meeting hostile intent determination and escalation of force decisions. Despite the 

success of these programs, and their alignment with a Department 

of Defense-wide move toward advanced training approaches that leverage human performance techniques and data collection as key 

157 

program requirements, the committee is concerned that other Navy 

commands continue to rely on legacy simulation systems that are 

not required to prove their effectiveness, and have not given serious consideration to new, innovative metric-based synthetic training programs capable of achieving, and validating Navy security 

force and fleet-wide small arms tactical and crew-served readiness 

improvements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide the committee with a briefing by February 1, 2019 detailing the Navy’s comprehensive plan to meet the enhanced small 

arms training advancements discussed above. The briefing shall include, but not be limited to, how the Navy will: (1) Address afloat 

and ashore security forces and Navy Installation Command small 

arms training improvements outlined in the 2013 Washington 

Navy Yard report; (2) Meet the unique requirements for small arms 

and improved crew-served weapons training and effectiveness 

under U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and the Navy Criminal Investigative Service; (3) Meet the key training objectives for hostile intent determination and escalation of force requirements described 

above; (4) Validate that human performance, readiness metrics, 

and proof of live-fire transfer will be key capability requirements 

of the Navy’s plan; and (5) Develop an acquisition strategy that requires legacy and future small arms simulation systems to competitively demonstrate their ability to meet rigorous next generation 

readiness requirements outlined above as a pre-requisite to receiving new or continued funding in fiscal year 2019 and future years. 

Operational energy technologies 

The committee is aware of a variety of technologies that may improve operational flexibility, enhance logistics, and reduce supply 

lines for forces operating in deployed environments, to include the 

ability to convert natural gas to tactical fuels, improve power generation, distribution, and storage in deployed environments, and increase the range and capability of tactical vehicles. The committee 

is supportive of these efforts and encourages the Department of Defense to transition such natural gas to tactical fuel technologies 

from the research and development stage in support of operational 

requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, not later than March 1, 2019, that outlines steps the Department is taking, to include resourcing and timelines for maturation of operational energy technologies, to transition such technologies to full scale demonstrations and commercial production. 

Paint training programs 

The committee believes that maximum efficiency is critical for 

more than 350 military paint facilities that perform painting and 

coating operations, including corrosion prevention and control, 

radar absorption, and camouflage. The committee understands that 

the Department of Defense’s operations require stringent specifications for the coating of each piece of equipment. 

The committee understands that paint training programs provide 

training for military painters and coating operations. The committee notes that paint training programs can save the Department 

158 

time and funding resources by using advanced technology and 

equipment along with hands-on training to effectively apply coatings and reduce waste. Additionally, increasing coating transfer efficiency and preventing corrosion and rework can improve asset 

readiness. Furthermore, the committee understands that paint 

training programs consistently update to the latest advancements 

in coatings, application equipment, and technology. Lastly, the 

committee notes that the paint training programs have trained 

hundreds of military and contract painters, serving all of the military departments. 

Predicting soil-terrain-atmospheric conditions 

The committee is aware of the valuable support the U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center-Cold Regions Research 

and Engineering Laboratory provides in rapidly and accurately predicting key terrestrial properties (e.g. soil/dust, water, snow, vegetation) in forward operating areas and extreme environments. 

Given the broad spectrum and diversity of these conditions, the 

committee strongly recommends that the Army accelerate its collection of this data to support the full spectrum of military activities 

including terrestrial aircraft operations and identifying improvised 

landing zones, ground mobility, dust emission, and monitoring the 

availability of vital water resources. The committee also strongly 

encourages developing new methods of linking variable and frequently changing land surface-atmospheric conditions on the deployment and performance of vital sensor-based tactical systems. 

In order to enhance the ability to rapidly and accurately predict 

the full spectrum of these terrestrial properties, the committee 

strongly urges the expanded use of remotely collected data, which 

directly benefits military operations, especially for adaptive and expedient force protection and maneuvers across highly variable terrain in all military operating environments and under variable climate and weather conditions. 

Privatization of stormwater conveyance systems 

The committee remains concerned with the ability of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) infrastructure to handle stormwater at 

many of its installations. Additionally, the committee is discouraged with DOD’s failure to comply with section 2813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328), which stated that it was the sense of Congress that 

‘‘wastewater’’ captures stormwater within the definition of section 

2688(i) of title 10, United States Code. Not utilizing privatization 

to repair aging infrastructure at Fort Benning, for example, resulted in $3.5 million dollars’ worth of damage due to catastrophic 

failures suffered during a December 2015 storm. The committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a report no later than 

December 1, 2018, on installation storm water conveyance systems 

and plans on addressing any shortcomings that currently exist. 

Report on transportation infrastructure critical to Eastern 

Range space operations 

The committee notes that the Indian River Bridge in Florida is 

critical to the ability of the Department of Defense to provide space 

159 

launch and range operations in support of the nation’s objectives. 

The Indian River Bridge is a federally owned property used by two 

federal agencies, and the replacement of the bridge requires a joint 

solution to ensure that the bridge is able to support national security space payloads. The committee also notes that the Secretary of 

the Air Force, who carries out the preponderance of space activities 

within the Department, must be included in the development of 

any solution with respect to the Indian River Bridge to ensure that 

space launch operations are not affected by the replacement of such 

bridge. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, to submit to the congressional defense 

committees no later than October 1, 2018, a report on the transportation infrastructure that is critical to the ability of the Department to use the Eastern Range in Cape Canaveral, Florida, for 

space launch operations. The report shall include: (1) An identification of Department and non-Department transportation infrastructure supporting the Eastern Range that is critical to Department 

space operations, including payload processing, delivery, and Department-operated launch capabilities; (2) An assessment of the 

ability of such transportation infrastructure or alternatives to safely transport all Department mission payloads during the period beginning on the first day of fiscal year 2019 and ending on the last 

day of fiscal year 2030; (3) An analysis of the impact on Department space launch operations of an inability of such transportation 

infrastructure to safely transport mission payloads through fiscal 

year 2030; and (4) A detailed plan to ensure that payload processing, delivery, and Department-operated launch capabilities are 

unencumbered by a failure in such transportation infrastructure. 

The report may contain a classified annex, if deemed appropriate. 

Report on universal camouflage inventory and use 

The committee supports the Army’s transition from Universal 

Camouflage Pattern (UCP) to Operational Camouflage Pattern 

(OCP) for soldier combat uniforms and organizational clothing and 

individual equipment (OCIE). The committee is very supportive of 

the Air Force’s recent decision to replace the Airman Battle Uniform and adopt OCP for all of its combat uniforms. The committee 

is also aware of a significant current inventory of OCIE in UCP, 

which includes, but is not limited to, Modular Lightweight Load 

Carrying Equipment and Improved Outer Tactical Vests. 

The committee understands that the Army Program Manager for 

Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment (PM SPIE) is currently evaluating overdye technologies and processes. This evaluation could validate technology and processes for UCP printed products to be altered into a color palette that blends with the new 

down selected camouflage prints and continues to pass all necessary requirements. The committee believes that these overdye 

technologies and processes could save significant resources, possibly up to 70 percent of the current item price, as the Army transitions to OCP. 

160 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than August 31, 2018. The report shall include, but is not limited 

to, defining current efforts underway to repurpose and field UCP 

clothing and equipment, efforts underway within PM SPIE to 

evaluate overdye technologies and processes, and a plan with cost 

and timelines to field these technologies and processes towards addressing an economically viable drawdown and use of otherwise obsolete OCIE in UCP. 

Review of Department of Defense mission assurance program 

The committee continues to be supportive of the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) issued mission assurance policy and strategy. 

However, the committee is concerned there may not be a robust 

mission assurance framework to fully consider mission, installation, facility, and infrastructure requirements (e.g. utility, water 

and wastewater, communication, and transportation systems), 

when developing critical mission assurance requirements. 

The committee is also concerned that information and data sharing challenges persist among installation, facility, infrastructure, 

and mission personnel on military installations. The committee believes that a more robust and comprehensive mission assurance 

framework needs to be considered, and that a process to share mission assurance information and data could help inform the development of critical mission requirements that support budgetary decisions. 

Prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have identified similar challenges with DOD’s identification and 

prioritization of defense critical infrastructure efforts. In 2008, the 

GAO identified several management weaknesses in DOD’s implementation of the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP) to 

comprehensively account for critical mission requirements (GAO– 

08–373R, GAO–08–851, and GAO–09–42). For example, the GAO 

reported that DOD lacks sufficient information to determine the 

full extent of the risks and vulnerabilities to critical assets. The 

GAO also identified the lack of infrastructure-related information 

regarding the networks, assets, points of service, and inter- and 

intra-dependencies; and, that existing programs did not routinely 

coordinate or share details of critical mission requirements with 

complementary DOD mission assurance programs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate DOD’s Mission Assurance program. 

The GAO review should assess the extent to which: (1) DOD fully 

takes into consideration supporting installation, mission operator, 

and critical supporting infrastructure (such as utility, water and 

wastewater, communication, and transportation systems) when developing critical mission assurance requirements; (2) The data 

management systems, such as the strategic mission assurance data 

system and mission assurance risk management system, accurately 

collect and take into account infrastructure-related information regarding the networks, assets, points of service, and inter- and 

intra-dependencies; (3) Metrics are in place to measure performance of achieving critical mission assurance requirements; (4) ProcVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
161 

esses are established to share information and data to inform development of critical mission requirements and budgetary decisions, and the extent to which these processes affected budgetary 

decisions; and (5) The military services have complied with existing 

DOD mission assurance requirements and policies. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than March 28, 

2019, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller General’s evaluation with a report to be completed by July 30, 2019. A classified 

annex may be provided, as appropriate. 

Review of the Navy’s shipyard improvement plan 

The committee notes that the Navy’s four public shipyards are 

critical to maintaining fleet readiness and supporting ongoing operations involving the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and 

submarines. However, as the Comptroller General reported in 

2017, the condition of the Navy’s shipyards is poor and they have 

not been fully meeting the Navy’s operational needs. Previous efforts to address these issues have been inadequate, in part because 

the Navy lacked results-oriented elements. Notably, the Navy presented its Shipyard Optimization Plan in February 2018, which the 

Navy describes as the first phase of a larger effort. The committee 

believes the Navy’s assessment of public shipyard dry dock capacity 

is particularly important, as it identifies 67 of 68 deferred maintenance availabilities under the status quo, all of which would be restored upon making the public shipyard dry dock investment recommended by the report. 

The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s efforts to develop a 

long-term and comprehensive plan, yet the committee is also concerned about the extent to which the Navy’s plan incorporates the 

recommended elements for effectively managing its shipyard capital investments and fully identifies the funding and authorities 

needed to eliminate maintenance backlogs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees regarding the Navy’s effort to address its public shipyard shortfalls. The report should evaluate the extent to which the 

Navy’s plan: (1) Addresses infrastructure deficiencies needed to 

support the current and 30-year force structure projections, includes metrics and other results-oriented elements to guide shipyard capital investments and sustain progress in addressing the 

shipyards’ needs; (2) Includes a five-year workload management 

plan for the entire nuclear maintenance enterprise, both publicand private-sector capacities, that limits lost operational days; (3) 

Identifies the funding and authorities required to eliminate maintenance backlogs and return to predictable, sustainable, and affordable ship maintenance availabilities for the planned navy force 

structure; and (4) Any other related matters the Comptroller General considers appropriate. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to brief 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than March 15, 

2019, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller General’s evaluaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
162 

tion, with the report to follow at a date to be determined at the 

time of the briefing. 

Rough terrain container handler 

The committee notes the wide-ranging efforts of the military logistics community to provide vital resources for the warfighter. 

However, the committee remains concerned by the lack of a comprehensive and appropriately resourced sustainment strategy for 

RT240 Rough Terrain Container Handler (RTCH) despite the Department of Defense (DOD)’s inventory of over 1,100 RTCHs on 

hand and the hundreds of thousands ISO containers within the 

DOD’s purview. 

The committee is concerned by the age of the RTCH fleet, the rumored overall poor readiness of the systems on hand, and notes 

that there is not a recapitalization program for these systems, nor 

a long-term strategy to modernize a fleet that was procured in 

1998. The committee believes the Army’s lack of a RTCH Service 

Life Extension Program (SLEP) will lead to further reduced readiness and an eventual budget request to replace the RTCH with 

new equipment. 

Of special concern is the differing paths the Army has taken 

compared to the Marine Corps, which has initiated a RTCH SLEP 

beginning in fiscal year 2019. The Marine Corps has requested $8.1 

million beginning in 2019 to begin a multi-year program to execute 

a SLEP for 117 of their 160 vehicles. The Army has chosen not to 

follow this model for its almost 1000 vehicles and is instead using 

an internal Operation and Maintenance, Army fund to perform its 

own program to sustain the fleet. As the Marine Corps is specifically investing in modern technology to harvest new capabilities 

and working with industry to speed the process of repairing their 

war weary systems, there is a clear divergence in the two programs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Army to develop plans to sustain the RTCH fleet, preserve the RTCH industrial base, both within and outside the Army, improve readiness 

and guarantee RTCH availability for operations into the 2030s. It 

requests a briefing to the Committee on those plans, and how current RTCH readiness meet U.S. Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM) logistics requirements, within 60 days of bill passage. 

In addition, since the Army and Marine Corps are pursuing different strategies to sustain this critical operational capability, the 

committee is interested in the potential impact of the two strategies on sustainment of this $1.0 billion investment made by DOD 

over the past two decades. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to: (1) Review the readiness and condition of the RTCH fleets in the Army and Marine 

Corps; (2) Identify, analyze, and compare the Army’s and Marine 

Corps’ sustainment strategies for their respective RTCH fleets, including whether these approaches have assessed available modernization capabilities that would enhance joint deployability; (3) 

Describe and assess any strategic risks associated with the Army’s 

and Marine Corps’ approaches to modernizing their respective 

RTCH fleets to meet TRANSCOM logistics requirements; and (4) 

163 

Report on any other related matters the Comptroller General 

deems appropriate. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2019, on 

preliminary observations of the Comptroller General’s evaluation, 

with a report to follow at a date to be determined at the time of 

the briefing. 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command common 

and logistics broker waiver process 

The committee requests that the Secretary of the Army explore 

a waiver process within the Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) for Department of Defense transportation officers who utilize the Automated Transportation Request 

System. This process may include allowing a SDDC registered 

transportation service provider freight carrier to serve as a common and logistics company or freight broker in such instances 

when it is determined by the transportation officer that cost and 

performance are better served by such action. 

The committee urges this review in order to ensure that transportation officers are able to utilize those freight carriers best suited to serve the warfighter in terms of performance and cost. 

Use of fire extinguishers in Department of Defense facilities 

and National Model Codes 

The committee is aware that portable fire extinguishers are essential to the safety of members of the Armed Forces and their 

families. The protection of service members and their families is 

imperative to the readiness of the force. Every Department building should apply building and fire codes that are in line with national model codes and state building and fire codes. The committee 

notes that National model codes promulgated by the National Fire 

Protection Association and the International Code Council have 

been adopted by almost every state in the nation. The committee 

is concerned that the removal of these devices and subsequent adherence to the change in United Facilities Criteria has the potential to harm force readiness and protection service wide. 

The current United Facilities Criteria should be updated to ensure it provides members of the Armed Forces, their families and 

other Department of Defense personnel with fire protection standards that are met by their civilian counterparts, including requiring portable fire extinguishers on military installations. 

Use of Global Combat Support System-Army by deployed 

units 

The committee notes that the Global Combat Support SystemArmy (GCSS–Army) is a defense business system that is being acquired to replace several separate systems used to manage critical 

logistics support activities at Army units, such as ordering and 

tracking supplies, maintaining accountability of organizational 

equipment, and monitoring unit maintenance. The committee understands that units will use GCSS–Army not only when they are 

at their home station, but also when they are deployed. In September 2014, the Comptroller General released ‘‘DOD Business 

164 

Systems Modernization’’ (GAO–14–470), which reviewed the early 

implementation of GCSS–Army at selected units and found that it 

was generally meeting their logistics requirements. At that time, 

the full system capability had been fielded to very few units, and 

the units were not deployed when using the system. The committee 

continues to be interested in the Army’s progress and plans for 

using GCSS–Army to support military operations. 

Water resources for Department of Defense installations 

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), near term 

weather variability such as changes in the number of consecutive 

days of high or low precipitation as well as increases in the extent 

and duration of droughts may exacerbate water shortages. DOD 

has stated that potential effects of water shortages on the Department’s installations include the following: disruption to—and competition for-reliable fresh water supplies; and reduced—or changedavailability and access to water resources to support personnel. 

Moreover, increasing demand for water places stress on the finite 

supplies of water that DOD installations depend on to fulfill their 

missions and make the management of water resources in the future more challenging if there is competition for fresh water. 

Drought conditions can impact military training when live fire 

training must be curtailed to avoid inadvertently starting wildfires. 

Water scarcity—the increased potential for the reduction in or disruption of an installation’s reliable access to water—has already 

caused DOD installations in the United States to implement aggressive water conservation and reuse measures. DOD has conducted studies that indicate critical installations could run out of 

water within two decades. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 

conduct a review of the Department’s water resource management 

practices and the identified or potential impacts from water scarcity and brief the committee no later than January 30, 2019. At a 

minimum, the review shall answer: (1) How do selected DOD missions and installations rely on water and what are the potential 

impacts of water scarcity on DOD installations and mission capability; (2) To what extent have DOD installations experienced increasing water scarcity or drought conditions since 2014 and how 

has DOD mitigated any such impacts; (3) What challenges does 

DOD face, if any, in mitigating the impacts of water scarcity; and 

(4) To what extent does DOD ensure that installations take full advantage of all available sources of fresh water and what impediments if any exist that hamper the ability to access fresh water. 

(165) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Active-Duty end strengths for fiscal year 2019, as shown below: 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 483,500 487,500 485,741 ¥1,759 +2,241 

Navy ........................................................................... 327,900 335,400 331,900 ¥3,500 +4,000 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 186,000 186,100 186,100 0 +100 

Air Force .................................................................... 325,100 329,100 325,720 ¥3,380 +620 

DOD Total ......................................................... 1,322,500 1,338,100 1,329,461 ¥8,639 +6,691 

The committee notes that the national unemployment rate is at 

a 10-year low point. In the past, when national unemployment was 

low and the military sought large end strength increases, the allvolunteer force has struggled to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of high-quality servicemembers. Therefore, the committee recommends end strength increases aligned with historical growth 

and tied to specific missions. 

The committee encourages the Army to use the additional end 

strength provided by this section to support priorities identified in 

the National Defense Strategy, such as Short Range Air Defense 

Battalions, Indirect Fire Protection Capabilities, Multiple Launch 

Rocket System Battalions, Air Defense Artillery Brigade Headquarters, Corps Headquarters in Europe, and the requisite trainees, transients, holdees, and students. 

For the Navy, the provision would authorize one of the largest 

year-to-year end strength increase since the end of the Cold War. 

While the committee recognizes the need for a larger end strength 

to meet future fleet demands, the Navy is unaccustomed to rapid 

growth and must demonstrate its ability to responsibly meet end 

strength targets. 

For the Marine Corps, modest growth supports emerging demands for special operations forces enabler personnel and is in line 

with historical end strength increases. 

For the Air Force, the provision would authorize end strength 

growth in line with historic achievable levels to increase pilot and 

enlisted aircrew production. 

The committee notes that current law authorizes the Secretary 

of Defense to approve up to a 3 percent Active-Duty end strength 

variance from the levels authorized by Congress. The committee 

166 

encourages the Department of Defense to make use of this authority if the military services demonstrate the ability to responsibly 

grow beyond authorized levels. 

End strengths for commissioned officers on active duty in 

certain grades (sec. 402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Active-Duty end strengths for officers in grades of major, lieutenant 

colonel, and colonel, and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, 

commander, and captain as of September 30, 2019, as follows: 

Service Major/Lieutenant 

Commander 

Lieutenant Colonel/Commander Colonel/ 

Captain 

Army ................................................................................................................ 15,470 8,700 3,970 

Navy ................................................................................................................ 11,010 6,670 3,060 

Marine Corps ................................................................................................... 3,920 1,910 650 

Air Force .......................................................................................................... 13,920 10,270 3,450 

DOD Total ............................................................................................... 44,320 27,550 11,130 

The end strength authorizations contained in this provision are 

aligned with the projections included in the fiscal year 2018 Defense Manpower Requirements Report. The committee notes that 

the fiscal year 2019 Defense Manpower Requirements Report was 

not submitted by the legally specified due date and was therefore 

not considered for the purposes of this provision. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2019, as shown below: 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 343,500 343,500 343,500 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 199,500 199,500 199,500 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 59,000 59,100 59,000 ¥100 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 106,600 107,100 106,600 ¥500 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 69,800 70,000 69,800 ¥200 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 816,900 817,700 816,900 0 0 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2019, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 30,155 30,595 30,155 ¥440 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,261 16,386 16,261 ¥125 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 10,101 10,110 10,101 ¥9 0 

167 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,260 19,861 19,450 ¥411 3,190 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 3,588 3,849 3,588 ¥261 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 78,626 83,062 81,816 ¥1,246 3,190 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last day of 

fiscal year 2019, as shown below: 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 22,294 22,294 22,294 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 6,492 7,495 6,492 ¥1,003 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 19,135 18,969 18,969 0 ¥166 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 8,880 9,908 8,880 ¥973 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 56,801 58,666 56,635 ¥1,976 ¥166 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on Active 

Duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, as of September 30, 2019, as shown below: 

Service FY 2018 

Authorized 

FY 2019 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2019 

Request 

FY 2018 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for military personnel activities at the levels identified in section 4401 of division D of this Act. 

168 

Limitation on use of funds for personnel in fiscal year 2019 

in excess of statutorily specified end strengths for fiscal 

year 2018 (sec. 422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from increasing end strengths for the various military departments and components beyond the levels authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) until the Secretary of Defense submits 

the report on ‘‘Highest-Priority Roles and Missions of the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces’’ required elsewhere in this 

Act. 

Budget Items 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs includes the following changes from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Military personnel underexecution ................................................... ¥1,937.1 

End strength reduction ...................................................................... ¥993.2 

Foreign currency fluctuation ............................................................. ¥133.0 

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps increase ........................... +1.22 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥3,062.08 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $3,062.08 million. This amount 

includes: (1) A reduction of $1,937.1 million to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment annual 

MILPERS under execution; (2) A decrease of $993.2 million to reflect active and reserve component end strength reductions from 

the President’s Budget request; (3) A decrease of $133.0 million for 

foreign currency fluctuation; and (4) An increase of $1.22 million 

for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. 

(169) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Part I—Officer Personnel Management Reform 

Modernizing officer personnel management in support of 

the National Defense Strategy 

The 2018 National Defense Strategy states correctly that ‘‘the 

creativity and talent of the American warfighter is our greatest enduring strength.’’ Furthermore, the strategy calls for a ‘‘broad revision’’ of talent management principles among the armed services to 

increase the lethality and adaptability of the force. The committee 

supports these priorities and recommends several provisions to 

modernize officer personnel management and bolster the effectiveness, recruitment, and retention of the all-volunteer force. 

Officer personnel management is a complex combination of statute, regulation, culture, and tradition that determines how military 

leaders are recruited, trained, retained, promoted, assigned, and 

compensated. Despite its importance, a personnel system is not an 

end unto itself. An effective officer personnel system must achieve 

desired military outcomes, which are based on a coherent defense 

strategy. When the personnel system becomes out of alignment 

with the strategy, the system must be revised. This is precisely the 

situation facing the current officer personnel management system. 

Officer careers are managed according to the tenets of the 38- 

year-old Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) 

(Public Law 96–513). DOPMA places strict limitations on commissioned officer personnel management and requires all military 

Services to manage their officer corps in the same general manner 

within specific statutory constraints. DOPMA limits the number of 

officers who may be allowed to serve in mid-grade officer ranks, 

how an officer is appointed, when an officer may be promoted, how 

promotion decisions will be made, and when an officer should be 

removed from service. 

Over the last several years, the committee has carefully studied 

the legislation, policy, and practice governing officer careers. The 

committee held public hearings on the topic in 2015, 2017, and 

2018, where expert civilian and military leaders urged reform. In 

2017, committee staff visited each military Service personnel headquarters to gain an in-depth understanding of how DOPMA is implemented on a day-to-day basis. The committee hosted multiple 

member and staff policy meetings to thoroughly understand current policy and options for reform, including recommendations from 

the Department of Defense. Based on the committee’s thorough research and deliberate process, the committee recommends several 

provisions to modernize DOPMA to properly orient the officer corps 

for the threats identified by the National Defense Strategy. 

170 

DOPMA was based on the assumption that the Armed Forces 

would primarily be required to defeat a single adversary, namely 

the Soviet Union. It was drafted at a time when lawmakers could 

not have foreseen the variety of challenges facing today’s military. 

In 1980, the primary military outcome DOPMA was designed to 

achieve was building and maintaining a perpetually young and vigorous force prepared for the large-scale maneuver warfare tactics 

of the Cold War. To achieve this outcome, DOPMA continued and 

strengthened an ‘‘up-or-out’’ promotion system as the fundamental 

concept for the management of officer personnel. The committee report (H. Rpt. 96–1462) accompanying the DOPMA legislation stated, ‘‘The simple fact is that if the system is working right, it will, 

of necessity, result in passover for promotion of officers who are 

fully qualified to serve in the next-higher grade.’’ 

Today, strategy, tactics, and dramatically different military demographics demand different outcomes from a personnel system 

than what DOPMA was designed to achieve. The 2018 National 

Defense Strategy notes the United States faces ‘‘a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in 

recent memory.’’ To respond to this volatility, the strategy calls for 

a ‘‘lethal, resilient, and rapidly adapting Joint Force.’’ Rapid adaptability, rather than youth and vigor, is the primary outcome that 

must be achieved by a modernized officer personnel system. 

Adaptability in the context of officer personnel policy means the 

ability to quickly recruit, promote, and retain the officers required 

to respond to emerging threats. To achieve this outcome, the committee recommends several provisions that de-emphasize predetermined promotion timelines and rigid constraints on officer manpower. Additionally, the committee recommends expanding constructive credit authority to allow the military to quickly recruit experienced personnel from the civilian labor pool. These provisions 

modernize rather than overturn the fundamental officer management principles that have served the military well over the past 

many decades. 

Force utilization and demographics must also be considered carefully in designing effective personnel policy. The authors of 

DOPMA never envisioned the post-Cold War military as presently 

constructed and utilized. Today’s force is 43 percent smaller than 

the military of 1980 and is constantly engaged in ways never predicted during the Cold War. Repeated overseas combat deployments strain the more traditional warfighting career fields, as new 

military domains require entirely different officer skills. 

Designing a personnel system capable of adapting to the unique 

concerns of hundreds of different officer specialties and career 

fields means moving away from a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ construct for officer management. Those officers subject to frequent overseas deployments may benefit from the opportunity to opt out of competing for promotion to free up time to pursue an unusual career 

opportunity. Officers in the burgeoning cyber and information warfare career fields are very likely to be best served by specially designed promotion and management policies. 

As the all-volunteer force has matured over the last forty years, 

new policies have thoroughly changed the demographics of the officer corps, with women and married servicemembers comprising a 

171 

much larger percentage of the military than in 1980. Over 11 percent of married officers are in a dual-military marriage, which 

means those families must balance the demands of two full-time 

military careers. These changes have strengthened the officer corps 

but have never been seriously considered as a factor when designing suitable officer management policy. 

To respond to these demographic realities, the committee recommends a number of provisions to emphasize individual merit 

and to provide opportunities for more individually-tailored career 

paths. In today’s competitive labor market, it is crucial to balance 

military necessity with the ability of servicemembers to have greater influence over their careers. In the vast majority of circumstances both interests can be achieved without sacrificing the 

unique concerns of a servicemember or the legitimate demands of 

a military career. 

Up-or-out remains an important foundation for officer personnel 

management. Not every officer can or should be retained for a full 

career. However, today the up-or-out promotion system has largely 

been replaced with an unofficial up-and-stay system. Though each 

military Service still routinely separates officers who fail to promote to the rank of major or lieutenant commander, the promotion 

rate to this rank has steadily increased to the point where only a 

few officers are not promoted. For example, in 2017, the Air Force 

announced a 100 percent promotion opportunity to the rank of 

major, and since 2001, the Army’s average promotion rate to major 

has been 88 percent. Each Service generally allows officers who 

reach major or lieutenant commander to remain on Active Duty 

until reaching retirement eligibility. Additionally, each of the Services often utilizes selective continuation authority to retain the relatively few officers who fail to promote to major or lieutenant commander. 

The committee continues to believe that up-or-out is an important principle for a large portion of the officer corps. However, not 

every officer career field should be forced to resemble a pyramid, 

with a large number of junior officers ultimately feeding fewer midlevel officers and fewer still senior ranking officers. Rather, some 

career fields would be best served with a structure that provides 

for a relatively small number of junior officers while supporting a 

larger number of mid-level officers. DOPMA and other policies 

make this a difficult outcome to achieve. The committee therefore 

recommends provisions that would provide additional flexibility to 

adjust the shape of the officer corps by discontinuing the authorized officer strength table, which caps the number of mid-level officers. 

The committee emphasizes that these updates to officer management are not motivated by the performance of currently-serving officers. The officer corps continues to provide strong and effective 

leadership for the all-volunteer force. However, this committee believes that in many cases, the military produces high-quality officers despite the current personnel system rather than because of 

it. Moreover, the challenges facing the military demand a modernized officer personnel system to ensure the military can harness 

the talent of the next generation of competent, agile leaders. Therefore, the committee recommends a series of proposals that would 

172 

provide necessary updates to officer management while also protecting the fundamental requirements of a military career. 

Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths of 

certain commissioned officers on active duty (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 523 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Congress to 

annually authorize the number of officers serving in the grades of 

major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the Army, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps or lieutenant commander, commander, and captain 

in the Navy. This provision would repeal the authorized officer 

strength table, including all of the previous exceptions to the officer 

strength table. 

The committee notes the officer strength table was originally included as a fundamental feature of the Defense Officer Personnel 

Management Act (DOPMA) (Public Law 96–513). The strength 

table was designed to serve as an effective limitation on the number of mid-grade officers within each service. The House report to 

accompany the legislation (H. Rept. 96–1462) explained that the 

table would be adjusted over time to align with emerging officer 

manpower requirements. However, in practice the authorized 

strength table has rarely been updated and is no longer linked to 

strategy or actual officer requirements. 

As of the end of fiscal year 2017, each service is largely unaffected by the limitations imposed by the strength table. For example, the Army finished fiscal year 2017 at approximately 78 percent 

of their authorization for officers serving in the grade of major. Majors in the Air Force and Marine Corps were respectively at 88 percent and 86 percent of authorized levels. While each service operates more closely to the strength table limit for progressively higher grades (e.g., the Air Force was manned at approximately 96 percent of authorized lieutenant colonel end strength), none of the 

services are effectively limited by the table as envisioned by the 

original DOPMA legislation. 

The committee authorizes annual end strength levels for the 

overall active and reserve component and numerous other subsets 

of total force manpower. This allows end strength to fluctuate to 

meet strategic and budgetary necessities. Similarly, this provision 

would require each military service to annually justify required 

mid-grade officer manpower needs to support an annual authorization from Congress. This provision provides greater flexibility to 

the military, while also ensuring Congress continues to perform its 

vital oversight role in ensuring the officer corps is effectively managed. 

Annual defense manpower requirements report matters 

(sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 115a of title 10, United States Code, to require the Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report be submitted on the same 

day as the date on which the President submits the budget request 

for the next fiscal year to Congress. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to include two new elements in the Annual Defense Manpower RequireVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
173 

ments Report. These new elements are: (1) The anticipated promotion opportunity for officer promotion boards expected to occur 

during the upcoming fiscal year; and (2) The number of officers required to serve during the upcoming fiscal year in the rank of 

major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel for the Army, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps and lieutenant commander, commander, and captain 

for the Navy. 

The Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report is a crucial 

tool for effective congressional oversight of military personnel. The 

report requirement was the result of fundamental concern when 

drafting the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) 

(Public Law 96–516). As the committee stated in the House report 

accompanying the legislation (H. Rept. 96–1462) ‘‘Although the 

committee is generally satisfied with the assessment of grade requirements, significant uncertainty exists in justifying the need for 

some of these requirements.’’ The Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report was designed to provide coherent justification of 

manpower needs to the Congress. 

The committee notes with disapproval that the Department of 

Defense has habitually disregarded the statutory deadline for the 

Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report. In fiscal year 

2018, the Department submitted the report over six months late. 

The fiscal year 2019 report is expected to be submitted nearly three 

months late. The Department’s disregard for a long-standing legal 

requirement inhibits Congress’s ability to provide effective oversight of the military’s most valuable resource, which is the people 

who volunteer to serve. 

Repeal of requirement for ability to complete 20 years of 

service by age 62 as qualification for original appointment as a regular commissioned officer (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 532 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement 

that original officer appointments may only be granted to individuals who are able to complete 20 years of commissioned service 

prior to reaching age 62. 

Enhancement of availability of constructive service credit 

for private sector training or experience upon original 

appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 533 and 12207 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

service secretaries to award constructive credit to newly-appointed 

active and reserve component officers for special training or experience not to exceed the amount of constructive credit required for 

appointment in the grade of colonel in the Army, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps or captain in the Navy. This provision would also repeal the temporary authority to award constructive credit for critically necessary cyberspace-related experience. 

The committee notes that this provision explicitly authorizes 

service secretaries to award constructive credit for any special experience, to include cyberspace-related experience, directly supportive the operational needs of each service. This provision is intended to allow the military departments to recruit individuals 

174 

more easily from the private sector with relevant knowledge that 

may be in short supply within a given service. However, a manpower shortage is not the only reason to utilize expanded constructive credit authority. This provision may also be used to increase 

the diversity of experience within the officer corps, particularly in 

career fields that closely resemble occupations outside of the military (e.g., program management, financial management, prosecutors, etc.). 

Traditionally, officer personnel management resembles the structure of a pyramid, with large numbers of junior officers required 

to fill smaller numbers of mid-grade and senior officer requirements. This may no longer be the ideal construct for all officer career fields. The committee envisions some career fields requiring 

relatively few junior officers, while still requiring larger numbers 

of mid-grade and senior officers. This provision would allow the 

Services to recruit those mid-grade and senior officers from the civilian labor pool by offering the incentives of a higher initial rank 

along with a more competitive compensation package. 

The committee notes the Army already structures some officer 

specialties with more senior-ranking than junior-ranking officers 

through its Voluntary Branch Transfer Incentive Program. This 

program allows lieutenants, captains, and majors to transfer out of 

occupational specialties with fewer mid-grade officer requirements 

(e.g., infantry) into other occupational specialties that require more 

senior officers (e.g., financial management). While the Army’s program is a useful retention tool, in some cases it may be more effective to recruit individuals with private-sector experience to fill 

these mid-grade officer ranks. 

This provision encourages the sort of rapid adaptability envisioned by the National Defense Strategy. By allowing the Services 

to recruit talented Americans at later stages of a career, the military can quickly build and shape new units to respond to emerging 

threats. 

Standardized temporary promotion authority across the 

military departments for officers in certain grades with 

critical skills (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 35 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new section to 

authorize each military service to award temporary promotions to 

the grade of O–4, O–5, and O–6 for officers serving in specified positions. This provision would also repeal a similar authority, which 

was previously only applicable to the Navy. 

The temporary promotion authority that would be provided by 

this provision must be utilized to fill positions requiring certain 

critical skills. This authority is designed to help the Services fill 

the gap between operationally challenging billets and the officers 

who are available to fill those assignments. Additionally, this authority would offer a valuable retention tool by incentivizing certain high-performing officers in low-density career fields to volunteer for challenging assignments with the promise of an earlier promotion. 

The committee notes a similar authority has existed in the Navy 

for decades. The Navy has utilized ‘‘temporary spot promotions’’ to 

175 

fill critical lieutenant commander billets in the nuclear engineering 

and special warfare communities. This provision would allow the 

other services to utilize similar authority as currently provided to 

the Navy and also expand the program to temporarily promote officers to the rank of captain, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the 

Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps or lieutenant, commander, and 

captain in the Navy. 

While the temporary promotions authorized by this provision are 

designed to occur earlier in an officer’s career than would normally 

be the case, the committee notes that this provision also requires 

a promotion board to select an officer for a temporary promotion, 

thereby providing an effective control measure to ensure only highperforming and skilled officers are selected for these prestigious appointments. 

As the committee continues to look for opportunities to provide 

flexibility within the officer management system, this provision is 

an important tool to allow service secretaries to shape their officer 

corps to respond to rapid changes in officer requirements. Temporary spot promotions could be used to fill vacancies in numerous 

officer career fields where the demand for mid-grade officers frequently exceeds the available supply. For example, the Air Force 

currently has mid-grade officer shortages in logistics and information operations, the Army continues to seek mid-grade officers for 

information warfare and other technical specialties, the Navy 

would be able to expand its existing program for higher-level assignments in nuclear and special warfare, and the Marine Corps 

could utilize this authority to fill shortages in technically-oriented 

career fields like financial and program management. While these 

are examples meant to illustrate the utility of temporary spot promotion authority, the committee looks toward the military departments to develop creative uses for this authority. 

Authority for promotion boards to recommend officers of 

particular merit be placed higher on a promotion list 

(sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 616 and section 14108 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to allow officer promotion selection 

boards to place officers of particular merit higher on a regular or 

reserve promotion list. 

In recommending this provision, the committee emphasizes that 

officer performance should be the most important factor in promotion determinations. This provision would allow high-performing 

officers to be promoted earlier than others, to include those officers 

who meet the promotion board after having already been passed 

over in a previous board. A similar authority has been used extensively by the U.S. Coast Guard for the last 16 years with great success. 

The committee encourages service secretaries to take advantage 

of this authority wherever possible. Recognizing high-performing 

officers through earlier promotions would improve the military’s 

ability to continue building an officer corps based on merit, character, and performance. 

176 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 619 and section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries, based on the request of an officer and 

only when deemed to be in the best interests of the military departments, to remove an officer from consideration by a selection board 

for promotion to the next higher grade. 

Competitive category matters (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 621 of title 10, United States Code, to require that service secretaries establish competitive categories by grouping officers occupying similar qualifications, specialties, occupations, or ratings. 

The provision would also prohibit the practice of requiring service 

secretaries to provide consistent promotion timing or promotion opportunity among various competitive categories in each military 

Service. 

Under current law, service secretaries have broad authority to 

establish competitive categories for the purposes of officer promotion and management. As a result, each military Service has 

pursued a different approach, with the Navy utilizing 20 different 

competitive categories, while the Marine Corps groups all of its officers into 2 competitive categories. Though the committee does not 

desire to mandate a specific number of competitive categories for 

each Service, in general, the committee believes service secretaries 

should make greater use of competitive category authority. 

The committee notes that within a given competitive category, 

service secretaries may tailor promotion timing, increase or decrease desired promotion opportunity, and customize guidance to 

promotion boards. These are important tools in managing the wide 

variety of officer careers in today’s military. Furthermore, as today’s force grows increasingly specialized and technical, competitive categories must be built to achieve specific career outcomes for 

individual officer career fields. 

Lastly, the committee is aware of Department of Defense instructions encouraging the Services to strive for consistent promotion 

timing and opportunity among various competitive categories. At a 

time when officer careers can be radically different, it makes little 

sense to strive for consistency of career outcomes. Officer career 

fields must be allowed to be customized based on the unique demands of a given specialty. 

Promotion zone matters (sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 623 of title 10, United States Code, to require service secretaries to align officer promotion zones with desired officer management outcomes described in the Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report. The provision would also prohibit service secretaries from determining the number of officers in a promotion zone 

on the basis of the year in which officers receive their original appointment to their current grade, a practice commonly referred as 

‘‘year group management.’’ 

177 

During the committee’s review of officer personnel management 

policy, it was discovered that some military departments structure 

officer promotion zones according to year group while other departments form promotion zones to achieve a certain promotion rate or 

opportunity. While the year group methodology allows for increased 

predictability for officer promotion timing, it frequently results in 

larger inefficiencies and a lack of predictability in the actual likelihood of an officer being promoted. For example, when an individual 

year group is small, promotion rates increase beyond what might 

be advisable. Alternatively, when an individual year group is large, 

promotion rates drop precipitously, thereby unfairly punishing 

some officers who might otherwise have been promoted if they had 

been commissioned a year earlier or later. This provision would require service secretaries to form promotion zones to achieve more 

consistent promotion rates that are aligned with the needs of the 

service, rather than consistent promotion timing. 

Alternative promotion authority for officers in designated 

competitive categories of officers (sec. 510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

alternative promotion process for officers in certain, service secretary-designated, competitive categories. This provision would also 

create a term-based selective continuation process for officers not 

selected for promotion. 

Under the authorities provided by this provision, officers serving 

in designated competitive categories would have up to five opportunities to be selected for promotion to the next highest grade. The 

provision would remove below-the-zone and above-the-zone distinctions within the promotion process, thereby allowing all eligible officers to compete for promotion purely on the basis of performance 

with limited regard for cumulative time served. 

In directing a competitive category to make use of the promotion 

process described in this provision, service secretaries must determine the number of promotion opportunities to be offered to each 

grade within the competitive category. For example, a service secretary may determine it is desirable to offer five opportunities to 

compete for promotion to major, while promotion to lieutenant colonel should require only three opportunities. Service secretaries may 

only make adjustments to the number of promotion opportunities 

once every 5 years. If the number of promotion opportunities is adjusted downward (e.g., from five to four opportunities), all officers 

with remaining promotion eligibility under the previous policy 

would have one more opportunity to compete for promotion. 

For many officers the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act 

(DOPMA) (Public Law 96–513) officer promotion system functions 

adequately. However, for some officers, DOPMA is unnecessarily 

constraining and does not achieve desired personnel outcomes. The 

alternative promotion authority included in this provision is intended to remove some of the most restrictive constraints, while 

preserving the underlying strengths of the officer promotion process. 

The committee also notes that one of the weaknesses of DOPMA 

is its excessive reliance on tenure as the primary determining factor in officer promotions. Additionally, the law effectively prejudices 

178 

any officer who competes for promotion outside of the specified promotion zone. For example, early promotions known as ‘‘below-thezone’’ are routinely in the low single-digit percentages even though 

the law allows for up to 10 percent of promotions for below-thezone officers. While officers previously not selected for promotion 

remain eligible, they are effectively stigmatized by promotion 

boards because a previous board did not select them. Consequently, 

promotion boards frequently and artificially limit their ability to select the most talented officers eligible for promotion so as to not 

harm those officers who are currently ‘‘in the promotion zone.’’ This 

effectively limits the promotion board’s ability to select the most 

talented officers, regardless of tenure, and also limits individual officer career flexibility. 

The requirement to compete for promotion according to predetermined timelines places an enormous amount of stress on officer careers. While the Services determine necessary career milestones for 

continued promotion, under DOPMA the Services have a limited 

ability to adjust when an officer must compete for promotion. As 

new requirements are levied on officer careers (e.g., joint assignments, advanced education, deployments, etc.) officers are forced to 

change assignments much more frequently than might be advisable 

in order to complete all required milestones prior to competing for 

promotion. Promotion timelines mandated by DOPMA and other 

supporting policies reinforce an officer personnel management system that prioritizes breadth of experience rather than depth of experience. 

No matter the process or policy, some officers will not be selected 

for promotion. The committee believes it is important to retain the 

up-or-out concept for officer management, but there must be some 

exceptions when the needs of the military will be best served by 

retaining an officer. The current selective continuation process is 

too imprecise to ensure only those officers who are most able to 

contribute to a unit’s success are retained. The Services routinely 

continue nearly all officers not selected for promotion, effectively 

disregarding the ‘‘selective’’ aspect of the continuation process. This 

provision would institute a term-based officer continuation process 

to allow officers not selected for promotion to continue serving only 

if they are able to contribute to a specific mission or assignment. 

Term-based selective continuation would allow officers to continue serving for renewable 3-year terms in specific predetermined 

assignments. As personnel management technology continues to 

advance, the committee envisions assignments for selectively continued officers will be individually matched on the basis of an officer’s unique knowledge, skills, and behavior. 

To ensure the successful implementation of the alternative promotion and continuation process contained in this provision, the 

Secretary of Defense is required to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act with his assessment of the effect of this provision on officer 

personnel. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

work with the military departments in drafting the required report. 

Over the last several years, each military department has acknowledged a heightened competition for talent. Competition 

179 

breeds innovation, which will be required to ensure the future officer corps is an attractive and effective profession. While the authorities contained in this provision are entirely permissive, the 

committee encourages the military departments to experiment with 

the alternative promotion process by crafting novel competitive categories of officers who would be best served by a more flexible promotion policy. 

Applicability to additional officer grades of authority for 

continuation on active duty of officers in certain military specialties and career tracks (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 637a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to allow officers in the grade of O–2 or above serving in certain specified military specialties to remain on Active Duty until 

reaching 40 years of active service. 

The committee intends this provision be used to allow the military to retain officers with vital knowledge, skills, and experience 

who may not be interested in or competitive for further promotion. 

This authority could be utilized in conjunction with other policies 

to build viable ‘‘technical tracks’’ for certain officer careers, which 

each military department has expressed an interest in pursuing. 

These technical tracks would generally be constructed to allow junior officers to remain in selected positions for an extended period 

of time to build greater depth of technical experience than ordinarily permitted by law or policy. Officers serving in aviation, 

cyber, maintenance, and special forces are examples where a technical track may be an effective personnel management option. 

While there will likely be few junior officers who remain on Active Duty for 40 years, the committee recognizes that it is sometimes counterproductive to force officers to separate or retire at an 

arbitrary point in time. The manpower needs of each military service should be the primary concern in determining when an officer’s 

career should be involuntarily ended. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Matters relating to satisfactory service in grade for purposes of retirement grade of officers in highest grade of 

satisfactory service (sec. 516) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) Authorize a conditional determination of an officer’s retired grade when the officer 

is under investigation for alleged misconduct at the time of retirement; (2) Authorize reopening of a determination or certification of 

an officer’s retired grade under specified conditions; and (3) Provide 

that determinations of satisfactory service in grade for purposes of 

determining an officer’s retired grade take into account the officer’s 

service throughout a military career. 

The committee recommends this provision authorizing conditional retirement of an officer who is under investigation in light 

of the fact that an officer remains subject to the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice in retired status and thus can still be held accountable for misconduct occurring prior to the officer’s retirement. 

180 

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

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

years of active naval service. 

Repeal of original appointment qualification requirement 

for warrant officers in the regular Army (sec. 518) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

3310 of title 10, United States Code, which requires original Regular Army warrant officer appointment be made from persons who 

have served at least 1 year on Active Duty in the Army. 

Uniform grade of service of the Chiefs of Chaplains of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 519) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to specify a common grade across the military 

services for the positions of Chief of Chaplains. 

Written justification for appointment of Chiefs of Chaplains 

in grade below grade of major general or rear admiral 

(sec. 520) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require service secretaries to submit a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that provides written justification in the event an individual holding a rank 

below major general or rear admiral is appointed to the position of 

Service Chief of Chaplains. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Authority to adjust effective date of promotion in the event 

of undue delay in extending Federal recognition of promotion (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14308(f) of title 10, United States Code, to allow service secretaries to adjust the effective date of promotion for officers in the 

reserve component if the secretary concerned determines there was 

an undue delay in the federal recognition process and the delay is 

not attributable to the action, or inaction, of the officer concerned. 

Authority to designate certain reserve officers as not to be 

considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to defer promotion consideration for reserve component 

servicemembers in a non-participatory, membership-only status. 

Current law requires all servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) to be considered for promotion to 

the next higher grade. This includes certain categories of reservists 

on the RASL who are in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and 

181 

the Standby Reserve, who remain eligible for promotion consideration but are not actively participating. 

Most officers upon release from the active component are transferred to the IRR without affiliating with a reserve unit that allows 

for participation. In some instances, these trained individuals have 

chosen to temporarily suspend their military career and voluntarily 

transferred to the IRR for a variety of reasons; others may have secured a civilian opportunity requiring transfer to the Standby Reserve where they are ineligible for participation. 

After deciding to resume their active service, some 

servicemembers learn of their ineligibility due to being twice deferred for promotion, during their time in a non-participatory reserve status. Others, who received their first deferment while in 

the IRR, potentially lack sufficient time upon returning to participation status—due to timing prior to their next promotion consideration—to demonstrate the potential to serve in the next higher 

grade and thus are discharged upon receipt of their second deferral 

for promotion, in accordance with current law. This serves as an 

obstacle to achieving permeability between the active and reserve 

component by reducing opportunities to re-affiliate trained and experienced servicemembers should they seek to return to active status. 

Expansion of personnel subject to authority of the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau in the execution of functions 

and missions of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10508 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority 

of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to employ persons under 

certain provisions of title 5, United States Code, in furtherance of 

meeting the requirements of section 1053 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as 

amended by section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and section 1083 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public 

Law 115–91). 

Repeal of prohibition on service on Army Reserve Forces 

Policy Committee by members on active duty (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10302 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the Army National Guard of the United States and United States Army Reserve 

officers serving on Active Duty to serve on the Army Reserve 

Forces Policy Committee. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 

the Navy standard workweek and make related adjustments to 

how workload is used in shipboard manpower planning. 

182 

The committee notes the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report on May 18, 2017, titled ‘‘Actions Needed 

to Ensure Proper Size and Composition of Ship Crews’’ (GAO–17– 

413), which recommended ‘‘the Navy (1) Reassess the standard 

workweek, (2) Require examination of in-port workload, (3) Require 

reassessment of the factors used to develop manpower requirements, and (4) Identify the personnel costs needed to man a larger 

fleet.’’ 

The committee further notes this GAO report states, ‘‘In 2014, 

the Navy conducted a study of the standard workweek and identified significant issues that could negatively affect a crew’s capabilities to accomplish tasks and maintain the material readiness of 

ships, as well as crew safety issues that might result if crews sleep 

less to accommodate unaccounted for workload. The Navy study 

found that sailors were on duty 108 hours a week, exceeding their 

weekly on-duty allocation of 81 hours.’’ 

Manning of Forward Deployed Naval Forces (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to maintain manning of ships assigned to the 

Forward Deployed Naval Forces at levels not less than the levels 

established for each ship class. 

Navy watchstander records (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to require key watchstanders on Navy surface ships to maintain a career record of watchstanding hours and 

specific operational evolutions. 

Qualification experience requirements for certain Navy 

watchstations (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the adequacy of individual training for certain 

Navy watchstations, including any planned or recommended 

changes in qualification standards. 

Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or requests for review of discharge or dismissal from the 

Armed Forces (sec. 535) 

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

Treatment of claims relating to military sexual trauma in 

correction of military records and review of discharge 

or dismissal proceedings (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1552 and 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 

treatment of claims for review of a discharge or dismissal relating 

to military sexual trauma in correction of military records and review of discharge or dismissal proceedings. 

183 

Subtitle D—Military Justice Matters 

Punitive article on domestic violence under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to establish 

a new punitive article on domestic violence in the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice. 

Inclusion of strangulation and suffocation in conduct constituting aggravated assault for purposes of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 928 of title 10, United States Code (article 128 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), to include strangulation and suffocation 

in conduct constituting aggravated assault for purposes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Authorities of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291) to authorize the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed 

Forces (Advisory Committee) to hold hearings and to require other 

Federal agencies to provide information requested by the Advisory 

Committee. These authorities are similar to authorities provided to 

the prior congressionally-mandated, sexual assault-related Response Systems Panel and Judicial Proceedings Panel. 

Protective orders against individuals subject to the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (sec. 544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize military judges 

and military magistrates to issue military protective orders. 

Expansion of eligibility for Special Victims’ Counsel services 

(sec. 545) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility for 

Special Victims’ Counsel services to victims of domestic violence 

and other aggravated violent offenses. 

Clarification of expiration of term of appellate military 

judges of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 950f of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the expiration 

of the term of an appellate military judge of the United States 

Court of Military Commission Review. 

184 

Expansion of policies on expedited transfer of members of 

the Armed Forces who are victims of sexual assault (sec. 

547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to expand eligibility for expedited transfer to 

servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault and physical domestic violence. 

Uniform command action form on disposition of unrestricted sexual assault cases involving members of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 548) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform command action form, 

applicable across the Armed Forces, for reporting the final disposition of certain sexual assault cases. 

Inclusion of information on certain collateral conduct of 

victims of sexual assault in annual reports on sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 549) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

inclusion of information on certain collateral misconduct of victims 

of sexual assault in annual reports on sexual assault involving 

members of the Armed Forces. 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, Transition, and 

Resilience 

Consecutive service of service obligation in connection with 

payment of tuition for off-duty training or education for 

commissioned officers of the Armed Forces with any 

other service obligations (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2007(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require an 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. 

Consecutive service of active service obligations for medical 

training with other service obligations for education or 

training (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2114(d) and 2123(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require 

that commissioned service obligations incurred as a result of participation in a military intern, residency, or fellowship training program shall be served consecutively with other commissioned service 

obligations incurred for education or training. This provision would 

apply to individuals beginning participation in medical training 

programs on or after January 1, 2020. 

185 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1154(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to require that 

members transferred to the Retired Reserve who wish to submit 

applications to participate in the Troops-to-Teachers program must 

do so not later than 3 years after the date of the transfer. This provision would apply the same application submission requirement to 

members transferred to the Retired Reserve in the same way the 

requirement currently applies to eligible members who are retired, 

separated, or released from Active Duty. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department 

of Defense for the purpose of the attendance of enlisted personnel 

at senior level and intermediate level officer professional military 

education courses. The provision would also repeal section 547 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

Repeal of program on encouragement of postseparation 

public and community service (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1143a of title 10, United States Code, to strike all references to the 

Department of Defense’s program to encourage members and 

former members of the Armed Forces to enter into public and community service jobs after discharge or release from Active Duty. 

The committee is aware that the only servicemembers to use the 

program were those members with less than 20 years of ActiveDuty service who retired between October 23, 1992, and September 

1, 2002. Furthermore, the committee believes that through the 

Transition Assistance Program, the Department of Defense and its 

interagency partners continue to fulfill the original intent and responsibility of this program. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to enable 

members of the Armed Forces to obtain professional credentials 

that do not relate to military training if the Secretary concerned 

determines it is in the best interests of the United States. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 102 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Secretary 

of Defense to offer to convert closing Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) detachments into National Defense Cadet 

186 

Corps organizations. This provision would also provide flexibility to 

service secretaries in setting JROTC instructor hiring and compensation policy. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to standardize JROTC detachment data collection 

methods and policy across the military departments. 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$40.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies impacted by enrollment of dependent 

children of military members and DOD civilian employees. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a) using the 

formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106– 

398), for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local 

educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe 

disabilities. Subsection (b) of the provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use $5.0 million of the total amount authorized 

for payments to local educational agencies with higher concentrations of military children with severe disabilities at the Secretary’s 

discretion and without regard to the formula set forth in section 

363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). 

Department of Defense Education Activity policies and procedures on sexual harassment of students of Activity 

schools (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would equally apply 

the provisions contained in title IX of the Education Amendments 

of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), with respect to education programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, to the 

education programs and activities administered by the Department 

of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). The provision would require DODEA to establish policies and procedures, not later than 

March 31, 2019, to protect students at DODEA schools who are victims of sexual harassment. 

The committee understands that student victims of sexual harassment in DODEA schools do not have the same rights and protections as those available to students attending U.S. public 

schools. The committee believes that DODEA’s current policies and 

187 

procedures for response to sexual harassment cases fail to respect 

the rights of victims and lead to inadequate and insufficient responses to complaints of sexual harassment in its schools. 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters 

Improvement of authority to conduct family support programs for immediate family members of the Armed 

Forces assigned to special operations forces (sec. 566) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1788a of title 10, United States Code, pertaining to the authority for the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct support programs for immediate family members of members 

of the Armed Forces assigned to special operations forces. The 

modification is intended to clarify the types of support services that 

are authorized under this program. The committee notes that when 

this program was codified by section 555 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), the intent was that the types of support activities provided previously 

under the pilot program were to continue under the permanent authority. 

Expansion of period of availability of Military OneSource 

program for retired and discharged members of the 

Armed Forces and their immediate families (sec. 567) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to extend eligibility 

for the Military OneSource program of the Department of Defense 

of an eligible individual retired, discharged, or otherwise released 

from the Armed Forces and their eligible family members to the 1- 

year period beginning on the date of retirement, discharge, or release of the individual. 

Expansion of authority for noncompetitive appointments of 

military spouses by Federal agencies (sec. 568) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3330d of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the head of 

a Federal agency to appoint non-competitively either a spouse of a 

member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty or a spouse of a disabled or deceased member of the Armed Forces. 

Improvement of My Career Advancement Account program 

for military spouses (sec. 569) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to take appropriate actions to ensure that 

military spouses eligible for participation in the My Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program are made aware of the program. The provision would require the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 

days of the date of the enactment of this Act, providing recommendations regarding mechanisms: (1) To increase awareness of 

the program among eligible military spouses; and (2) To increase 

participation in the program. Additionally, the provision would reVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
188 

quire the service secretaries to take actions to ensure career counselors at military installations receive appropriate training and 

current information on eligibility and benefits utilization under the 

MyCAA program, including financial assistance for the costs associated with portability of occupational licenses, professional credentials exams, and professional re-certification. 

Access to military installations for certain surviving spouses 

and other next of kin of members of the Armed Forces 

who die while on active duty or certain reserve duty 

(sec. 570) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting jointly with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, to establish procedures whereby an eligible surviving 

spouse and certain other next of kin of members of the Armed 

Forces may obtain access without escort, as appropriate, to military 

installations to receive benefits to which they may be entitled by 

law or policy. This provision would require establishment of such 

procedures not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this Act. 

Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council 

matters (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of subsection (b) of section 1781a of title 10, 

United States Code, to: (1) Authorize a change in membership of 

the Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); and (2) Change the 

term of service from 3 years to 2 years for military family organizations serving on the MFRC. The provision would also amend subsection (d), paragraph 2, of such section to require the MFRC to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to improve collaboration, awareness, and promotion of accurate and 

timely military family readiness information and support services 

by policy makers, service providers, and targeted beneficiaries. Finally, the provision would amend subsection (e) of such section to 

change the submission date for the MFRC’s annual report from 

February 1 to July 1 of each year. 

Multidisciplinary teams for military installations on child 

abuse and other domestic violence (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries to establish and maintain multidisciplinary 

teams on child abuse and other domestic violence at military installations to: (1) Share information among teams and other appropriate personnel regarding the progress of investigations and the 

resolution of incidents of child abuse and other domestic violence 

involving members of the Armed Forces stationed at or assigned to 

installations; (2) Provide for and enhance collaborative efforts 

among teams and other appropriate personnel of the installations 

regarding investigations into and resolution of incidents; (3) Enhance the social services available to military families at the installations in connection with incidents, including through the enhancement of cooperation among specialists and other personnel 

providing services to military families in connection with incidents; 

189 

and (4) Conduct other duties regarding the response to child abuse 

and other domestic violence at the installations as the Secretary 

concerned considers appropriate. The provision would prescribe the 

composition, expertise and training, and ongoing responsibilities 

(including coordination and collaboration with non-military services 

or resources on child abuse or other domestic violence) of teams. 

Additionally, the provision would require each Secretary concerned 

to submit a report to Congress, not later than March 1, each year 

through 2022, on the activities of multidisciplinary teams under 

their jurisdiction during the preceding year. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement a policy to permit the issuance 

of clearances, on a provisional or interim basis, for the provision of 

supervised childcare services by personnel at military childcare 

centers. This provision would provide that any clearance issued 

under the policy shall be temporary and contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements for issuance of a clearance on a permanent basis. The committee believes this provision would help shorten the hiring process and improve the availability of childcare services at military childcare centers, thereby enhancing military family readiness. 

Pilot program on prevention of child abuse and training on 

safe childcare practices among military families (sec. 

574) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Health Agency, to 

conduct a pilot program at military installations to assess the feasibility and advisability of universal home visits to provide eligible 

covered beneficiaries and their families training on safe childcare 

practices aimed at: (1) Reducing child abuse and fatalities due to 

abuse and neglect; (2) Assessing risk factors for child abuse; and 

(3) Connecting families with community resources to meet identified needs. 

The provision would prescribe the scope and elements of the pilot 

program, including the requirement for home visits of eligible beneficiaries by a team led by a nurse, whenever practicable. The Secretary would be required to inform all eligible beneficiaries of the 

program and participation in the program would be at the election 

of the beneficiary. In conducting the pilot program, the Secretary 

would carry out not fewer than five implementation assessments to 

assess the feasibility of the elements and requirements of the program. These assessments would occur at not less than 5 military 

installations and conclude not later than 2 years after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

The Secretary would submit an initial report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

which describes how the Department would carry out the program. 

The Department would then submit a final report to the same committees not later than 180 days after completion of the pilot proVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
190 

gram. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to implement the pilot program at all military installations if he determines that any element of the program is effective. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, at not fewer than 

five military installations, to assess the feasibility and advisability 

of permitting military spouses to participate in activities under the 

Transition Assistance Program. The Secretary would carry out the 

pilot program during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act. The provision would require the Secretary 

to submit an initial report describing the pilot program to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 

this Act. In addition, the Secretary would submit a final report to 

the same committees within 6 months after completion of the pilot 

program. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress providing an 

assessment of the feasibility and advisability of permitting military 

spouses to engage in small business activities on military installations in the United States in partnership with commissaries, exchange stores, and other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities 

of the Armed Forces. 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards 

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross 

for Justin T. Gallegos for acts of valor during Operation 

Enduring Freedom (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross to 

Staff Sergeant Justin T. Gallegos for acts of valor while serving in 

Afghanistan on October 3, 2009. 

Award of medals or other commendations to handlers of 

military working dogs (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of each military department to establish a program for 

awarding one or more medals or other commendations to handlers 

of military working dogs. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Authority to award damaged personal protective equipment 

to members separating from the Armed Forces and veterans as mementos of military service (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of 

191 

a military department to award personal protective equipment of 

the member or veteran that was damaged during deployment to 

veterans or members separating from the Armed Forces. 

Standardization of frequency of academy visits of the Air 

Force Academy Board of Visitors with academy visits of 

boards of other military service academies (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9355 of title 10, United States Code, to require the United 

States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors to visit the Air Force 

Academy at least annually. This provision would align United 

States Air Force Academy Board of Visitor meeting requirements 

with other military service academies. 

The committee notes that the United States Naval Academy and 

the United States Military Academy Boards of Visitors annually 

convene at least three in-person meetings, with two such meetings 

occurring on the grounds of the respective academy. In standardizing Board of Visitor meeting requirements throughout the military service academies, the committee expects the Air Force Academy to align its Board of Visitor policy to the practices of the other 

military service academies. 

Redesignation of the Commandant of the United States Air 

Force Institute of Technology as President of the United 

States Air Force Institute of Technology (sec. 593) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-designate 

the Commandant of the United States Air Force Institute of Technology as the President of the United States Air Force Institute of 

Technology. 

Limitation on justifications entered by military recruiters 

for enlistment or accession of individuals into the 

Armed Forces (sec. 594) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict military recruiters from changing the reasons for an individual entering into the Armed Forces to anything other than that individual’s 

stated reason. The committee remains concerned that marketing 

and advertising metrics related to recruiting efforts continue to 

lack the ability to demonstrate the effective use of resources. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 551 and 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to revise certain definitions 

and procedural requirements related to the National Commission 

on Military, National, and Public Service. 

Burial of unclaimed remains of inmates at the United States 

Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, 

Kansas (sec. 596) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 985 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize burial at the 

United States Disciplinary Barracks Cemetery at Fort LeavenVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
192 

worth, Kansas, of the remains of military prisoners unclaimed by 

a person authorized to direct disposition of the remains or by other 

persons legally authorized to dispose of the remains. 

Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft for 

veterans with service-connected disabilities rated as 

total (sec. 597) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2641b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans 

with a permanent service-connected total disability rating to travel 

on military aircraft on a space-available basis. The committee notes 

that this provision would also ensure the primary purpose of spaceavailable travel remains transporting servicemembers and their dependents. 

Items of Special Interest 

Administrative separation protections for members of the 

Armed Forces 

The committee supports the existing protections against wrongful 

discharges enshrined in Department of Defense Instruction 

1332.14. This directive states, ‘‘Separation for personality disorder, 

or other mental disorder not constituting a physical disability, is 

not appropriate nor should it be pursued when separation is warranted on the basis of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. In 

such circumstances, the enlisted Service member should not be separated under this paragraph regardless of the existence of a personality disorder.’’ The committee acknowledges that non-disability 

mental health discharges against combat veterans have dropped 

significantly since these requirements were put in place. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to apply these same 

standards of protection for all separations. 

Assessment of Department of Defense Education Activity’s 

policies and procedures on student misconduct 

The committee remains deeply concerned about recent media articles, published by the Associated Press, which indicate that the 

Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) and the Services fail to ‘‘protect or provide justice to the children of 

servicemembers when they are sexually assaulted by other children’’ in Department of Defense (DOD) schools and on military 

bases. It is disturbing to learn that the DOD’s policies and procedures may prevent efforts to help child victims of misconduct, including sexual harassment and sexual assault, and to rehabilitate 

and hold child offenders accountable. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive assessment of DOD’s 

and DODEA’s policies and procedures regarding misconduct, including sexual misconduct, to help child victims of misconduct and 

to rehabilitate child offenders, including whether the Department 

took corrective actions to hold offenders accountable when appropriate. This assessment shall examine the authority of DODEA officials and military commanders to hold offenders accountable for 

criminal acts and include a review of services available to military 

193 

families to address the mental health and other needs of victims 

of misconduct. The assessment shall also evaluate the adequacy of 

DODEA’s policies to address allegations of serious misconduct occurring in areas and programs that fall within DODEA’s area of responsibility, including reporting requirements, and referrals to 

criminal investigators as well as military and civilian child services. The Inspector General shall provide the report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than December 1, 2018. 

Assessment of relocation of family members 

The committee shares the Department of Defense’s commitment 

to supporting servicemembers and their families whenever they are 

experiencing a crisis, to include incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, or child abuse. The committee notes that family members are often located away from their primary support systems, 

which may make it more difficult to handle these painful situations, heal, and in some circumstances participate in criminal adjudications. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether current statutory and regulatory authorities authorize servicemembers and their families to relocate in an efficient 

and effective manner. The assessment should examine the ability 

of the Department to expand current policies in order to allow for 

family members (whether abused by a servicemember with a familial relationship or not) to relocate to a location of their choosing in 

an expedited manner at government expense, similar to the expedited transfer policy for active duty servicemembers. The committee directs the Secretary to provide its findings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 

no later than November 1, 2018. 

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

As the committee continues to look for opportunities to make 

military personnel management policy more adaptable, the ability 

of the military to quickly and repeatedly transition servicemembers 

between the active and reserve components is an important step toward building a true continuum of service. The committee understands that under current policy and practice, transferring an officer from one component to another can take up to 4 months. This 

extended timeline is likely a contributing factor in declining reserve component affiliation rates and the limited numbers of reserve component officers able to return to the active component. 

The committee also understands the current original appointment policy contributes significantly to delays in processing original appointments and promotions for both the active and reserve 

component. In particular, military department officials have repeatedly stated concerns related to the ‘‘scrolling’’ process used to 

process officer original appointments. This process may also affect 

the time required to gain federal recognition of National Guard 

promotions. Despite the recurring concerns, Department of Defense 

(DOD) and military officials have been unable to articulate aspects 

194 

of the current process that may be accelerated either by policy or 

legislative changes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of DOD’s original appointment 

process and to provide preliminary observations to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

by the end of February 2019. At that time, a final product due date 

will be determined. The review shall include: (1) An explanation of 

current original appointment processes within all relevant organizations, including the military departments, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the White House Military 

Office, and the Senate; (2) An explanation of the necessity for hard 

copy scroll documents; and (3) A discussion of opportunities to accelerate the original appointment process. 

Comptroller General study of dependency determinations 

for incapacitated adult children of military members 

The committee has learned about potential problems associated 

with dependency determinations made by the Department of Defense for incapacitated adult children. In some instances, adult 

children lose dependency status if they are placed in group homes 

or other institutional settings. In other cases, an adult child may 

not earn wages because those earnings would impact a dependency 

determination. 

As a result, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a study of the Department’s policies, procedures, and processes for determining dependency status of incapacitated adult children. In the conduct of this study, the Comptroller General shall answer the following questions: 

(1) To qualify as a military dependent, the servicemember’s contribution to the incapacitated adult child’s monthly living expenses 

must be greater than half of the dependent’s actual living expenses. What additional criteria does the Department use to determine dependency status of an incapacitated adult child? 

(2) How many servicemembers requested incapacitated adult 

child dependency determinations over the last 5 years? How many 

dependency determinations did the Department grant, by year, 

over that time period? 

(3) For a servicemember with an incapacitated adult child in a 

group home or other institutional setting, what options does the 

servicemember have to keep the family together geographically in 

the event of a permanent change of station? 

(4) What assistance does the Department provide to families as 

they navigate the dependency determination process? 

The Comptroller General shall brief the preliminary results of 

such study to the committee not later than February 1, 2019. At 

that time, the committee and the Comptroller General shall determine a mutually agreeable date for submission of the final report. 

Dependent care flexible savings accounts 

Congress authorized dependent care flexible spending accounts 

for federal workers in 2003, but the uniformed services have not 

yet developed a plan to offer such accounts. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) stated 

195 

in a Sense of Congress that uniformed servicemembers should be 

afforded access to pre-tax flexible spending accounts. Additionally, 

Congress expressed its desire that the Services and government 

agencies consider life events of members of the uniformed services 

that are unique to them as members of the uniformed services, including changes relating to permanent changes of duty station and 

deployments to overseas contingency operations. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

Defense, with respect to members of the Army, Navy, Marine 

Corps, and Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to members of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, with respect to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, and the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to 

commissioned officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to implement flexible spending arrangements with respect to basic pay and compensation for dependent care on a pretax basis in accordance with regulations prescribed under sections 

106(c) and 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Facilitation of separation process and State veterans affairs 

offices 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense policy allows separating servicemembers to include an email address in the 

remarks section of the DD Form 214, and that the Department has 

been working toward electronic delivery of member service and separation data that will allow authorized stakeholders, including 

State veterans affairs offices, full access to data that will provide 

faster and better access to benefits for servicemembers. 

To this end, the committee believes there is utility in 

servicemembers providing their email addresses, but is concerned 

that many choose not to. The committee encourages service secretaries to ensure that separating servicemembers are made aware, 

during their transition counseling, of the benefits of providing an 

email address in the remarks block of their DD Form 214. An 

email address is useful in facilitating receipt of and access to veterans benefits, and to ensure a continued contact with veterans if 

service-connected injuries or other service-related issues arise postmilitary service, as they often do. 

Improvements to licensure and credentialing for military 

spouses 

The committee remains concerned about the employment difficulties military spouses face as a result of the rigors and requirements 

of military life. Whether their 1st or 20th move, many military 

spouses repeatedly encounter a costly and lengthy process to meet 

the professional licensure and credentialing requirements of their 

new State before they can seek meaningful employment in their 

chosen field. 

Depending on the profession and the requirements in each State, 

military spouses can spend upwards of thousands of dollars to become credentialed or licensed every time they relocate. This cost 

alone may make it prohibitive for military spouses to continue or 

pursue their own careers. For many, it is not only the cost, but the 

time involved. A 2-year assignment does not give a military spouse 

196 

much time to find a job if the licensing process in a given State 

takes 12 months. 

In the Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey from 

2017, 28 percent of military spouses reported they were unemployed and actively seeking work while 55 percent of employed 

military spouses stated they were underemployed. When compared 

to the current national unemployment rate of 4.1 percent, it is 

clear that military spouses experience greater impediments when 

seeking full-time employment than their civilian counterparts. 

While Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Defense 

(DOD) resources exist to aid military spouses in finding employment or obtaining licensure and credentials after a move, the committee believes that States are less engaged with their military 

spouse populations than they should be and are often unaware of 

the employment hardships military spouses endure. The committee 

believes that States would benefit from better understanding the 

significant and unique economic benefits military spouses bring to 

local communities, which might incentivize States to remove 

credentialing and licensure barriers faced by military spouses. 

The DOL and DOD resources, CareerOneStop and Military 

OneSource respectively, offer varying and disparate levels of information on the States’ requirements for credentials and licensure. 

CareerOneStop provides more helpful information, while Military 

OneSource offers a more user-friendly experience. On both web 

sites, information appears incomplete and outdated. With military 

families moving every few years, having easily accessible, accurate, 

and current information on military spouse employment might 

make the difference between a single-income military family and a 

dual-income one. 

The committee notes there is unfortunately no one-stop resource 

for military spouses to find the information each State requires on 

professional credentials and licensure, and therefore directs the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation and coordination with the 

Secretary of Labor, to update the Military OneSource spouse licensure map on its internet web site and to provide a certification letter to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives that the information on the web site is 

current, accurate, and complete for each State and each profession 

requiring licensure or certification. Further, the committee directs 

that this web site be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure 

its continuing accuracy and usefulness to military families. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the National Governors Association, to review existing obstacles to greater military 

spouse licensure and credentialing portability across the States and 

to consider solutions to increase such portability and the feasibility 

of these solutions. The Secretary shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than March 1, 2019, on the results of this 

review. The report, at a minimum, shall include: (1) An analysis of 

the prevalence of military spouses in each State, which would include the total number of military spouses and the percentage of 

the overall population in the State that are military spouses; (2) 

The estimated impact of employment of military spouses on State 

197 

economies; (3) An assessment of the economic impact of establishing licensing compacts or occupational licensing boards to reduce occupational licensing burdens and to remove certification impediments for military spouses; (4) A summary of economic and 

other benefits to States relating to increasing occupational licensing reciprocity for military spouses; and (5) A summary of industry 

association and local business views with respect to the facilitation 

of greater credentialing and licensure portability for military 

spouses. 

Inclusion of the study of hybrid warfare in professional 

military education 

The 2018 National Defense Strategy correctly noted that Professional Military Education (PME) in the Department of Defense is 

‘‘stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory 

credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.’’ The committee 

agrees with this sentiment and further notes PME curriculum 

must be capable of adapting and teaching servicemembers about 

new methods and forms of warfare. Specifically, the emergence of 

hybrid warfare, where adversaries often employ nonmilitary tools 

to pursue their interests, is a subject frequently excluded from traditional PME curriculum. 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s renewed 

focus on PME and therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2018, 

explaining how the Department will emphasize what the National 

Defense Strategy calls ‘‘intellectual leadership and military professionalism in the art and science of warfighting.’’ In particular, the 

report should explain how the Department is integrating hybrid 

warfare concepts into in-residence and distance learning PME curriculum to include the study of past and present hybrid warfare 

campaigns. 

Military childcare subsidies 

The committee directs the Department of Defense to include in 

its assessment of use of subsidized, off-Installation childcare services, required by subsection (a) of section 575 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), 

an assessment on modifying the rate of use of subsidized, off-installation childcare services by military families in light of the full implementation of MilitaryChildCare.com, including whether the 

availability of off-installation childcare services for military families could be increased by altering policies of the Armed Forces on 

capping the amount of subsidies for military families for such services based on the cost of living for families and the average cost of 

civilian childcare services. 

National Guard Federal promotion delays 

The committee recognizes that soldiers and airmen in the National Guard are unique because their appointments and promotion 

to a higher rank are governed by their states and are subsequently 

reviewed and approved for Federal recognition by the Federal Government. The committee continues to believe that a thorough reVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
198 

view of officer character and conduct is necessary, but is concerned 

about reports that bureaucratic obstacles in the scrolling process 

are unduly slowing Federal recognition of National Guard promotions. 

Delays in Federal recognition can have negative consequences for 

National Guard officers, who often assume a more senior role while 

waiting for their promotion to be federally recognized, still receiving the pay and benefits of a more junior grade. Delays impact time 

in grade, or can result in officers being assigned to lesser positions 

than they are qualified to perform. It also means that National 

Guard officers may not be assigned to positions of additional responsibility, such as command, when working hand-in-hand with 

their Active-Duty counterparts on a Federal mission. 

Therefore, the committee has included a provision that would 

provide service secretaries with discretion to adjust the date of 

rank of National Guard officers when promotions are unduly delayed. The committee urges the service secretaries to use this authority to expeditiously identify and proactively address National 

Guard officers whose promotions have been unfairly subjected to 

bureaucratic delay. 

National Guard mental health pilot program 

The committee remains concerned with the high suicide rate 

present in the National Guard and endorses efforts by the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to increase access and resources for behavioral health treatment and support for members of the National 

Guard. The committee is supportive of the efforts taken by the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau to establish the National 

Guard Warrior Resilience and Fitness Program, an integrated approach to using embedded behavioral health models to leverage enhanced screening tools and predictive analytics to identify mental 

health risk and provide early, targeted intervention. Not later than 

December 1, 2018, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall 

provide a letter report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on the Warrior Resilience 

and Fitness Program, including its impact on readiness, resiliency 

and suicide prevention. 

Permanent change of station frequency and impact on military families 

The committee applauds military spouses for being adaptable, resilient, innovative problem solvers with an unwavering commitment to our nation and our military servicemembers. Yet frequent 

moves to accommodate servicemembers military careers—on average every 3 or 4 years—take a significant toll on spouses ability to 

maintain viable career paths. By the time military spouses find a 

home, secure childcare services, and get settled into a new job, it 

is often time for them to start thinking about the next move. The 

tempo of these constant moves has multiple effects: (1) Employers 

are reluctant to hire military spouses knowing there is a good 

chance they will move soon; (2) Military spouses are left to multiple 

instances of underemployment or unemployment; and (3) State-approved credentials may not transfer. 

199 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives setting forth an assessment of 

the effects of the frequency of permanent changes of station (PCS) 

of members of the Armed Forces on stability of employment among 

military spouses. The report shall include the following: (1) An assessment of the effects of the frequency of PCS of members of the 

Armed Forces on stability of employment among military spouses, 

including the contribution of frequent PCS to unemployment or 

underemployment among military spouses; (2) An assessment of 

the effects of unemployment and underemployment among military 

spouses on force readiness; and (3) Such recommendations as the 

Secretary considers appropriate regarding legislative or administrative action to achieve force readiness and stabilization by minimizing the impacts of frequent PCS on stability of employment 

among military spouses. 

Public-private partnerships on military installations 

The committee is concerned that installation commanders lack 

clear and consistent guidance on the process and authorities available to them to seek and receive proposals to enter into public-private partnerships with local organizations, which would benefit 

military communities, servicemembers, and their families. These 

partnerships range from installation infrastructure and management services (including fire, public safety, emergency medical, and 

other emergency services), to services for servicemembers, families, 

retirees, and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians (including morale, welfare, and recreation activities), to mission-type functions 

(including training opportunities with civilian agencies). 

RAND Corporation’s 2016 report, Military Installation Public-toPublic Partnerships, identified numerous barriers to successful implementation of these types of cooperative efforts. The committee is 

concerned that DOD is not doing enough to overcome these obstacles, and that the Department’s policies and procedures are not 

clearly defined and disseminated to installation commanders and 

their staff, further inhibiting successful cooperation. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to review Department-level policies 

and procedures to remove obstacles where they are present and to 

ensure that all installation commanders and base support staffs 

have received clear guidance outlining approved processes to enter 

into public-private partnerships. 

Reimbursement for certain costs incurred by states during 

domestic emergencies 

The committee recognizes that the National Guard is an essential force providing effective emergency response capabilities in the 

Homeland. However, during some complex emergency responses, 

states are forced to assume fiscal risk that can jeopardize their 

ability to accomplish the emergency response deployment, and further place individual servicemembers in conditions of compromised 

individual protection, family protection, and compensation. 

The committee notes that a mechanism exists in current law 

where the Federal Government can reimburse a state that orders 

its National Guard to State Active Duty to respond to certain doVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
200 

mestic emergencies. The committee understands that when the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is authorized to 

reimburse states for National Guard utilization during a domestic 

emergency, such reimbursement may take over a year to reach the 

state. The committee further notes that exceedingly long periods 

for reimbursement reduces states’ ability to respond to follow-on 

domestic emergencies or ones of extended duration. For extended 

duration emergencies, such as those suffered by states during the 

2017 hurricane season, funding requirements can extend beyond 

the current state fiscal year. The committee also notes that states 

acting under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact to 

provide mutual aid to another state during a domestic emergency 

must obligate their own funds to do so. These states are especially 

harmed by long reimbursement timelines. Finally, the committee 

understands these delays in reimbursement can harm military 

readiness. 

Therefore, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 

the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, in consultation with FEMA and 

the states, to report to the congressional defense committees on 

suggested ways to expedite the reimbursement process. The consultations should include consideration of the process for requesting specific orders status, the average time for the Federal Government to answer a request from a state, and the criteria required 

to approve the request. 

Responding to cases of traumatic brain injury sustained in 

intimate partner violence event 

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) are at increased risk 

of traumatic brain injuries (TBI), but these injuries often go 

undiagnosed, which can lead to serious short- and long-term health 

problems. Currently, there are few research studies available on 

the relationship between IPV and TBI, and it is uncommon for 

medical providers to screen or treat for IPV-related TBI in emergency departments. The committee is concerned, therefore, that 

TBIs resulting from IPV may not be adequately evaluated, diagnosed, and treated in military treatment facilities. As a result, the 

committee strongly encourages training of all military first responders to help them understand the occurrence of TBI in association with IPV and to recognize those injuries early to expedite further evaluation and treatment. Moreover, victim advocates, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and counselors must understand 

the cognitive and behavioral effects of TBI in association with IPV, 

such as loss of memory, confusion, or agitation, and know how 

those effects can impact IPV survivors during an investigation. 

Senior Military Acquisition Advisor eligibility 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense requested 

an amendment to section 1725 of title 10, United States Code, 

which established the position of Senior Military Acquisition Advisor within each military department. The requested modification 

would reduce the minimum required commissioned service time for 

these positions from 30 years to 26 years of active commissioned 

service. 

201 

Typically, current law requires officers who are not selected for 

promotion to general or flag officer retire upon reaching 30 years 

of active commissioned service, therefore making it nearly impossible to select an officer to fill the Senior Military Acquisition Advisor position in the required rank of colonel, or in the case of the 

Navy, captain. The committee understands this restriction and has 

taken steps elsewhere in this title to allow for officers to continue 

serving beyond 30 years of service. 

Specifically, as part of the committee’s efforts to modernize officer personnel management, this title includes a provision to authorize service secretaries to allow officers in the grade of O–2 or 

above to remain on Active Duty until reaching 40 years of active 

service. This provision would provide the legal relief requested by 

the Department, while also ensuring officers assigned to these critical acquisition roles have the experience desired by the committee 

when it created the Senior Military Acquisition Advisor position. 

Specialized workshops for transitioning servicemembers 

The committee maintains an ongoing interest that transitioning 

servicemembers receive the specific training they need to transition 

successfully to civilian life, whether they choose to pursue higher 

education, a career in a technical field, or entrepreneurship. Under 

current law, the Department of Defense must ensure that 

transitioning servicemembers participate in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). In response to this requirement, the Department has published regulations and issued instructions that require eligible servicemembers to complete TAP and that require 

commanding officers ensure that servicemembers complete the program. 

Beyond TAP’s mandatory core curriculum, servicemembers are 

also given the option to participate in a more specialized, 2-day 

workshop in one or more of the following areas: (1) Higher education; (2) Technical and skills training; or (3) Entrepreneurship. 

The committee is concerned that, while the core curriculum is necessary, it may be insufficient to enable transitioning service-members to successfully transition to civilian careers. While 

transitioning servicemembers may supplement the core curriculum 

with at least one of the 2-day workshops, these optional activities 

are rarely utilized. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, published in November 2017, titled ‘‘DOD Needs to Improve 

Performance Reporting and Monitoring for the Transition Assistance Program’’ (GAO–18–23), stated that fewer than 15 percent of 

transitioning enlisted servicemembers participated in one of the 2- 

day workshops in fiscal year 2016. In the report, GAO also noted 

that, at four of the seven military installations it surveyed, commanders ‘‘were less inclined to allow servicemembers to attend theses classes because they were considered optional.’’ 

The committee is concerned that requiring transitioning 

servicemembers to opt into a 2-day workshop signals to both 

servicemembers and their commanders that the workshops may be 

superfluous, thereby discouraging participation. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Department to make certain that all 

TAP-eligible servicemembers participate in one of the 2-day workshops with waivers for servicemembers who expressly decline such 

202 

participation or whose participation would conflict with imminent 

readiness requirements. 

Training requirement for background check submissions 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense Inspector General has reported multiple, widespread failures to comply 

with reporting requirements to send servicemembers’ criminal data 

to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The shooter who murdered worshipers in Sutherland Springs, Texas was able to purchase a firearm despite his criminal record because the Air Force 

failed to submit his information to the FBI. Unfortunately, this is 

not the only case of a lapse in the incorporation of military criminal 

records into the FBI’s background check databases. 

As such, the committee encourages the Department to ensure all 

personnel of military criminal investigation services who are responsible for assembly or submittal of information to the FBI receive specific training on the requirements, procedures, and processes on how to submit relevant information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The committee 

acknowledges that clear, thorough training for military criminal investigation services personnel and other relevant Department personnel will save lives by ensuring all procedures and requirements 

are followed when reporting and flagging criminal records to NICS. 

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

The committee remains concerned about the rates of violence 

within military families, which harm those families and impact 

military family readiness. For fiscal year 2016, there were 13,916 

reports of suspected child abuse and neglect to family advocacy programs across the Services with 6,998 of those incidents confirmed. 

Although rates of reported child abuse have remained flat over the 

last ten years, the youngest children remain the most vulnerable 

to lethal forms of abuse. The Department of Defense (DOD) reported 18 child abuse-related fatalities for fiscal year 2016. All of 

these victims were under 5 years old and 50 percent of them were 

1 year old or younger. In five cases, the victim or offender was previously known to Family Advocacy Program (FAP) officials. 

Moreover, intimate partner violence is also a significant issue 

within the Services with 8,673 reported incidents that ‘‘met criteria’’ in fiscal year 2016. DOD reported eight spouse abuse fatalities and one intimate partner fatality related to abuse for fiscal 

year 2016. In six cases, the victim or offender was known to the 

FAP. In addition, DOD reported an increase in the occurrence of 

sexual abuse in intimate partner incidents. 

Even though DOD cites the rate of reported child abuse and neglect in the military at about half of the reported rate for the civilian community, there are no data available to estimate the actual 

prevalence of intimate partner violence and child abuse and neglect 

in the military. DOD does not conduct a survey of family members 

and therefore lacks these prevalence rates. 

As a result, the committee urges the Department to work with 

a federally funded research and development center to conduct 

anonymous surveys of family members to understand better the 

203 

prevalence of intimate partner violence and child abuse and neglect 

in the military. The surveys should include questions pertaining to 

perpetration of intimate partner violence, victimization, specific incidents and types of physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, 

psychological aggression, economic abuse and/or interference with 

military benefits, risk factors, and the unique stressors faced by 

military families. 

Use of data analytics to facilitate assignment matching and 

military family stability 

As the military migrates toward a talent management personnel 

paradigm, the committee recommends each service utilize advanced 

data analytics and new assignment matching technologies to better 

match servicemembers to available assignments. These technologies make assignment matching more efficient and effective by 

aligning servicemember skills, knowledge, and behavior with the 

unique demands of each position. In some cases, it may be in the 

best interest of the servicemember and the mission to allow an individual to remain in a single location or unit for an extended period of time. Extending assignments often comes with the added 

benefit of providing stability to military families, who frequently 

describe constant relocations as a major detractor from their overall satisfaction with military life. The committee encourages the 

Department of Defense to continue developing advanced assignment matching systems and policies based on data analytics. 

Use of reserve personnel for the Cyber Mission Force 

As the military departments continue to formalize their contribution to the U.S. Cyber Command Cyber Mission Force by acquiring, 

training, and managing personnel with cyber-related capabilities, 

the committee encourages creative utilization of personnel who 

serve in the reserve component. The private sector requirement for 

relevant cyber knowledge and experience continues to grow, which 

means the reserve component may be the ideal source of personnel 

who possess the skills necessary to bolster the Cyber Mission 

Force. 

The committee encourages service secretaries to use all personnel 

authorities at their disposal to attract and retain personnel for the 

Cyber Mission Force. In particular, the committee is interested in 

novel approaches to the use of the reserve component for this vital 

mission. As innovative personnel policies are developed, the committee urges service secretaries to identify legal constraints and to 

propose changes to current law to improve the military’s ability to 

make itself an attractive employer for the nation’s cyber workforce. 

Warm handoff for transitioning servicemembers suffering 

from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain 

injury 

The committee notes that traumatic brain injury (TBI) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are often considered the ‘‘signature wounds’’’ of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 

379,000 servicemembers have received a first-time diagnosis for 

TBI since 2000, and data from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) show that 11–20 percent of veterans who served in Iraq and 

204 

Afghanistan experience PTSD every year. Research indicates that 

TBI and PTSD are often associated with other psychiatric or 

neurodegenerative conditions, including mood and anxiety disorders, cognitive difficulties, and increased rates of substance abuse 

and suicidal ideation, which can inhibit recovery. 

While initial diagnosis and treatment of PTSD and TBI often 

occur within the military health system, the VA provides ongoing 

care for separating servicemembers, including many who have received one or both diagnoses. The committee recognizes efforts by 

the Departments of Defense and VA in recent years to support the 

transfer of severely wounded servicemembers with ongoing complex 

care needs, including establishment of the Interagency Care Coordination Committee to ensure a ‘‘warm hand-off’’ between agencies. However, the committee remains concerned that individuals 

without visible injuries, including those who are experiencing cognitive or psychiatric difficulties as a result of service-acquired TBI 

or PTSD, may not be appropriately identified for similar complex 

care management. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of VA, to establish policies and procedures, no later than December 1, 2018, to ensure continuity of care 

for any servicemember who has a diagnosis of moderate or severe 

PTSD or TBI and who enrolls in care through the VA upon transition from Active Duty to veteran status. The Secretary shall submit 

a report to the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 30 

days after establishing such policies and procedures, describing the 

actions taken to facilitate better transitions for this population. 

(205) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2019 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise of 2.6 percent for all members of the uniformed services 

effective January 1, 2019. 

Repeal of authority for payment of personal money allowances to Navy officers serving in certain positions (sec. 

602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 414 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate additional personal money allowance to certain naval officers serving as President of the Naval Postgraduate School, Commandant of Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, President of the Naval War College, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, or Director of Naval 

Intelligence. 

Under current law, certain lower-ranking naval flag officers are 

entitled to a greater personal money allowance than the Chief of 

Naval Operations or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Additionally, similar positions in the other military services (e.g., Superintendent of the United States Military Academy) are not entitled to the same additional personal money allowance as naval officers. This provision establishes consistent personal money allowance across the Services for general and flag officers of the same 

rank and position. 

Department of Defense proposal for a pay table for members 

of the Armed Forces using steps in grade based on time 

in grade rather than time in service (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a proposal for a time in grade-based 

pay table for military personnel. This provision would also require 

the Comptroller General to review the proposal and assess its effect 

on recruitment and retention. 

Financial support for lessors under the Military Housing 

Privatization Initiative during 2019 (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to pay up to 2 percent of the calculated Basic 

Allowance for Housing (BAH) rate to specific lessors who provide 

on-base housing as part of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). 

206 

The committee notes that payments authorized by this provision 

must be approved on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary of Defense 

should approve payments to individual lessors based on an assessment of the lessor’s financial status, condition of housing associated 

with the lessor, and whether earnings from other privatized housing projects owned by the lessor are sufficient to pay for costs at 

the specified housing area. Prior to issuing any payment to a lessor, the Secretary of Defense must notify the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

On March 13, 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

published a report titled ‘‘Military Housing Privatization: DOD 

Should Take Steps to Improve Monitoring, Reporting, and Risk Assessment’’ (GAO–18–218). Due to a lack of consistent and timely 

data provided by both the Department of Defense and individual 

privatized housing lessors, GAO was unable to determine whether 

recent reductions to Basic Allowance for Housing have had any 

negative effect on the long-term viability of individual privatized 

housing projects. Additionally, the decentralized approach pursued 

by each service for on-base privatized housing agreements makes 

it difficult to implement a centralized, general policy to correct any 

identified funding shortfalls. The committee continues to believe, as 

stated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) Conference Report (Conf. Rept. 115– 

404), ‘‘This is a problem that the military services and their MHPI 

partners must solve together.’’ 

The committee directs the service secretaries, by no later than 

September 1, 2018, to report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the relative financial condition and future sustainability of each MHPI project 

under their jurisdiction and the impact of the BAH rate change on 

the future sustainability of those projects. Additionally, the service 

secretaries are directed to implement the recommendations of 

GAO–18–218 and provide an update to the congressional defense 

committees by no later than September 1, 2018. 

Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay adjustment in annual basic pay of members 

of the uniformed services (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to remove the justification of serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare 

from the waiver authority of the President to make an alternative 

pay adjustment. 

Eligibility of reserve component members for high-deployment allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments 

and frequent mobilizations (sec. 606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 436 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize reserve component personnel ordered to Active Duty under section 12304b of 

title 10, United States Code, to receive a high-deployment allowance for frequent or lengthy deployments. 

207 

Eligibility of reserve component members for nonreduction 

in pay while serving in the uniformed services or National Guard (sec. 607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5538(a) of title 5, United States code, that would include reserve component personnel ordered to Active Duty under section 

12304b of title 10, United States Code, under existing protections 

preventing reduction in pay while absent from a position of employment with the Federal Government. 

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

608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to allow the Secretary 

of Defense to temporarily adjust current rates of Basic Allowance 

for Housing (BAH) for a military housing area if the Secretary determines that the actual costs of adequate housing in that military 

housing area differ from current BAH rates by more than 20 percent. This authority provided by this provision would expire on December 31, 2019. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special 

pay authorities (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in health professions, and contracting bonus 

for cadets and midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 

hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive 

or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 

the nurse officer candidate accession bonus and education loan repayment for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected 

Reserve. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 

the special bonus and incentive pay for nuclear officers. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 

for income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty service. 

The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority of the 

Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of the Basic 

Allowance for Housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or 

experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

208 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1450(m) of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Department of Defense to make special survivor indemnity allowance cost 

of living adjustments consistent with the survivor benefit plan and 

military retired pay. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 

no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act providing a costbenefit analysis of the long-term per diem policy rate change that 

became effective on November 1, 2014, consistent with the principles and requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A–94. If the Secretary fails to deliver this analysis within 120 

days after enactment of this Act, or if the analysis demonstrates 

that the costs of this policy change outweigh the benefits, and will 

continue to outweigh the benefits, then the policy reverts to the 

policy in effect as of October 31, 2014. 

Prohibition on per diem allowance reductions based on the 

duration of temporary duty assignment or civilian travel (sec. 632) 

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

Items of Special Interest 

Defense Commissary Agency and small businesses 

The committee commends the Defense Commissary Agency 

(DeCA) for its efforts to achieve cost savings and to provide patrons 

with an improved shopping experience through its current transformation initiatives. DeCA strives to include small businesses in 

its acquisition of fresh fruits and vegetables, and these businesses 

can provide higher quality and fresher produce at competitive 

prices because of their close proximity to local commissaries. As 

DeCA’s business transformation proceeds, the committee encourages DeCA to continue utilizing small businesses for the acquisition of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Privatized on-base lodging program 

The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Secretary of 

Defense to make Department of Defense business operations more 

209 

efficient. As the Secretary noted in his February 2017 Memorandum, efficiencies will free up resources to enable ‘‘a larger, more 

capable and more lethal Joint force.’’ One possible area that should 

be considered in the Department’s review of business operations is 

the on-base lodging program. 

The committee has watched with interest as the Army has 

privatized base lodging operations over the last several years. As 

the Army continues to express satisfaction with its program, the 

Department is encouraged to analyze the Army’s privatized base 

lodging program and determine whether a similar model would be 

suitable for the other military departments. The Department 

should ensure that any expansion of the privatized base lodging 

program carefully considers cost, quality, and ability to support the 

military’s unique mission. 

The committee looks forward to reviewing the Department’s 

analysis as it considers options to consolidate and privatize base 

lodging for the Navy and Air Force, and urges the Department to 

keep the congressional defense committees informed before implementing any changes to existing on-base lodging programs. 

Small business access to military exchange stores 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

work with the military exchange services to develop strategies for 

featuring small business products, particularly those from veteranowned firms, in military exchange stores. The committee acknowledges that exchange stores, as non-appropriated fund instrumentalities of the DOD, are not required to give any preference to vendors 

and suppliers. However, the committee also recognizes that exchange stores are uniquely positioned to feature products from 

small businesses, especially veteran-owned firms. Therefore, the 

committee urges the military exchange services to make a substantive effort to use small businesses as suppliers when possible. 

(211) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits 

Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE 

Select and TRICARE Prime (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1075 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Prime and Select. This provision 

would eliminate the grandfathering of cost-sharing requirements 

for beneficiaries enrolled in the TRICARE program prior to January 1, 2018, as authorized in section 701 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). The 

amendments under this provision would take effect on January 1, 

2019. 

The committee is aware that TRICARE beneficiaries enrolled in 

the TRICARE program prior to January 1, 2018, have experienced 

higher co-payments for medical services under TRICARE Prime 

and TRICARE Select than those beneficiaries enrolled after that 

date. This provision would correct an inequity in the TRICARE 

benefit among beneficiaries by establishing a single co-payment 

structure applicable to all TRICARE beneficiaries. 

Administration of TRICARE dental plans through the Federal Employees Dental Insurance Program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8951(8) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize eligibility 

of Active-Duty family members, non-activated National Guard/Reserve members, family members of National Guard/Reserve members, and certain survivors under the Federal Employees Dental 

Insurance Program (FEDVIP) beginning on or after January 1, 

2022. This provision would also amend subsection (b) of section 

1076(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to administer TRICARE’s dental insurance plans, through 

an agreement with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to allow eligible beneficiaries to enroll in an insurance plan 

under chapter 89A of title 5, United States Code, in accordance 

with terms (to the extent practicable as defined by the Director 

through regulation) prescribed by the Secretary, including terms 

consistent with subsection (d) and, to the extent practicable in relation to chapter 89A, other provisions of this section. 

Section 715 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) authorized beneficiaries eligible 

for the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program to enroll in a dental insurance plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). This provision would extend highly regarded dental insurance coverage, available through the FEDVIP, 

212 

to eligible TRICARE Dental Program beneficiaries and would provide better choices of dental plans for improved dental health of 

those beneficiaries. 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE Program (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1074d(b)(3), 1075(c), 1075a(b), and 1074g(a)(6) of title 10, 

United States Code, to require coverage of contraception services 

for covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program. The provision would prohibit cost-sharing for any method of contraception 

provided by a TRICARE network provider and for any prescription 

contraceptive on the uniform formulary provided by a network retail pharmacy provider or the mail order pharmacy program. The 

effective date of this provision would be January 1, 2020. 

Pilot program on opioid management in the military health 

system (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Defense Health Agency to implement a comprehensive pilot program, for a period of not more than 3 years, to minimize early opioid exposure in beneficiaries under the TRICARE 

program and to prevent misuse or abuse of opioid medications. The 

pilot program would begin within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, and it would include elements to maximize opioid 

safety across the entire continuum of care, consisting of patient, 

physician or dentist, and pharmacist. Additionally, the provision 

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, not later than 180 days before the completion of 

the pilot program, describing the conduct of the program. Finally, 

the provision would authorize the Director to implement the pilot 

program on a permanent basis if the Director determines that the 

pilot program successfully reduces early opioid exposure in 

TRICARE beneficiaries and prevents progression to misuse or 

abuse of opioid medications. 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed 

Forces for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, not to extend beyond 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, to assess 

the feasibility and advisability of using intensive outpatient programs to treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from military sexual trauma, 

including treatment for substance use disorder, depression, and 

other issues related to those conditions. Under this provision, the 

pilot program would be carried out through partnerships with public, private, and non-profit health care organizations or institutions 

that: 1) Provide health care to members of the Armed Forces; 2) 

Provide evidence-based treatment for psychological and neurological conditions common to members of the Armed Forces; 3) Provide health care, support, and other benefits to family members of 

213 

members of the Armed Forces; and 4) Provide health care under 

the TRICARE program. The provision would establish pilot program activities and would require the Secretary to install evaluation metrics before commencement of the program. In addition, the 

provision would require the Secretary to submit an initial report 

describing the pilot program to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary 

would then submit a final report to the same committees not later 

than 180 days after completion of the pilot program. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Improvement of administration of Defense Health Agency 

and military medical treatment facilities (sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1073c(a) of title 10, United States Code, to improve and enhance the administration of the Defense Health Agency and military medical treatment facilities (MTFs). Under this provision, the 

Defense Health Agency (DHA) would have the following additional 

authorities to: (1) Direct, control, and serve as the primary rater 

of the performance of commanders or directors of MTFs; (2) Direct 

and control any intermediary organizations between the Defense 

Health Agency and MTFs; (3) Determine the scope of medical care 

provided at each MTF to meet the military personnel readiness requirements of the senior military operational commander of the 

military installation; (4) Determine total workforce requirements at 

each MTF; (5) Direct joint manning at MTFs and intermediary organizations; (6) Establish training and skills sustainment venues 

for military medical personnel; (7) Address personnel staffing 

shortages at MTFs; and (8) Approve service nominations for commanders or directors of MTFs. The provision would also amend section 1073c(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to require the DHA 

Director to ensure that the DHA meets the military personnel 

readiness requirements of the senior military operational commanders of military installations. 

In Conference Report 115–404, accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), 

the conferees expressed concerns with the Department of Defense’s 

original plan to implement section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and 

voiced a strong commitment to reform the organization and governance of the military health system. Even with this clear direction 

from the conferees, the Department has again failed to provide a 

credible, detailed plan to implement section 702. As a result, the 

committee believes that this provision would further clarify the intent of section 702 and lead to enhanced operational medical force 

readiness and total force readiness, improved access to care, improved quality of care, and a better experience of care that soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines (and their families) deserve. 

214 

Organizational framework of the military healthcare system 

to support medical requirements of the combatant commands (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the Defense 

Health Agency (Director), to commence implementation, not later 

than October 1, 2018, of an organizational framework of the military health system that: (1) Effectively implements chapter 55 of 

title 10, United States Code; (2) Maximizes interoperability; and (3) 

Fully integrates the medical capabilities of the Armed Forces to enhance joint military medical operations in support of combatant 

command requirements. 

The provision would authorize the Director to conduct a phased 

implementation, in compliance with section 1073c of title 10, 

United States Code, of a new organizational framework with full 

implementation required not later than October 1, 2020. The provision would establish no more than three health readiness regions 

in the continental United States, and each region would be led by 

a commander or director appointed to a grade no higher than major 

general or rear admiral. Each military department would nominate 

qualified individuals to serve in those positions, and the Director 

would select those individuals to serve as health readiness regional 

commanders or directors under the authority, direction, and control 

of such Director. 

Under this provision, the Director would establish a regional hub 

at a major military medical center in each region to provide complex, specialized medical services. Each regional hub would be geographically located to maximize medical support to combatant commands. The provision would authorize the Director to establish or 

maintain additional medical centers in locations with large beneficiary populations or locations that serve as the primary readiness 

platforms of the Armed Forces. In addition, this provision would 

authorize the Director to establish up to two health readiness regions outside the continental United States. The provision would 

prescribe certain additional duties and responsibilities of the Director related to readiness, operational medicine support, and beneficiary healthcare delivery. 

Moreover, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense, 

through the service secretaries, to disestablish the medical departments of the Services, and any subordinate commands or organizations, not later than October 1, 2019, and to establish operational 

medical force readiness organizations in each service, led by the 

Services’ Surgeons General. These organizations would have no 

command authority. Finally, the provision would prescribe the responsibilities of the Services’ operational medical force readiness 

organizations. 

In March 2018, the committee received the Department’s third 

interim report, which described its most recent plan to implement 

section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). After careful review of this interim report, however, the committee remains frustrated with the 

Department’s plan to reform the military health system. In the 

committee’s view, the plan fails to maximize interoperability as it 

does not fully integrate the medical capabilities of the Services to 

215 

enhance joint medical operations. The plan maintains the Services’ 

medical departments and establishes new, stove-piped service commands whose responsibilities would be to oversee medical force 

readiness and to provide administrative support to military medical 

personnel, a function that could otherwise be effectively provided 

by other units reporting directly to the Services’ line commanders. 

In addition, the plan would not fully eliminate duplicative activities carried out by the Defense Health Agency and the Services’ 

medical departments. For example, the plan would reduce total 

medical headquarters personnel by only 165 full-time equivalent 

positions—out of 6,400 total positions—through 2023. Clearly, the 

plan demonstrates that the Services intend to maintain many, if 

not most, existing medical headquarters functions and current 

staffing levels while disregarding the call for innovation and efficiency included throughout the Department’s National Defense 

Strategy. 

To address these concerns and many others, this provision would 

thoughtfully prescribe a centralized organizational framework for 

the military health system that more clearly focuses the entire system on: (1) Improving total force readiness; (2) Meeting the actual 

medical requirements of combatant commanders; (3) Improving 

proficiency training for military medical providers in a fully integrated, joint training environment; and (4) Ensuring greater efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare services, while providing high 

quality, safe medical care and improving the experience of care for 

all beneficiaries. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to streamline the process under section 1095f 

of title 10, United States Code, by which TRICARE Prime beneficiaries are referred to the civilian provider network for inpatient 

and outpatient care under the TRICARE program. The provision 

would prescribe certain objectives for the streamlined referral process and require implementation in calendar year 2019. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary to conduct an annual evaluation of the referral process and make improvements to 

the process as a result of the annual evaluation. 

Currently, TRICARE Prime beneficiaries must undergo an exhaustive 10-step process to obtain a referral for medical care in the 

civilian provider network. This burdensome referral process unnecessarily delays medical evaluation and treatment, frustrating beneficiaries and creating dissatisfaction with the TRICARE program. 

The committee believes that the Defense Health Agency must 

quickly re-engineer the referral process to eliminate inefficient and 

unnecessary steps to improve the experience of care for TRICARE 

Prime beneficiaries. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to establish and maintain a program comparable to preVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
216 

scription drug monitoring programs operated by the States, including programs approved by the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services under section 3990 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C. 280g–3). This program would apply to designated controlled 

substance prescriptions under the Department of Defense’s pharmacy benefits program. Under this provision, the Secretary would 

establish appropriate procedures for bi-directional sharing of patient-specific information regarding prescriptions for designated 

controlled substances between the program and State prescription 

drug monitoring programs, including any program operated by a 

county, municipality, or other subdivision within that State, to prevent misuse or diversion of opioid medications and other designated controlled substances. The provision would also authorize 

the Secretary to treat the disclosure of patient-specific information 

as an authorized disclosure for purposes of the health privacy regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191). 

Improvement of reimbursement by Department of Defense 

of entities carrying out state vaccination programs in 

connection with vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program (sec. 715) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 719(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 10 U.S.C. 1074g note) to require 

the Secretary of Defense to reimburse an entity carrying out a 

State vaccination program for making vaccinations available to 

TRICARE covered beneficiaries. The provision would also stipulate 

that subparagraph (B) of section 719 should not apply to amounts 

assessed by entities providing independent verification that the assessments of such entities are below the costs of the private sector 

in making vaccines available. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2019, to 

September 30, 2020. 

Increase in number of appointed members of the Henry M. 

Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military 

Medicine (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 178(c)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

number of appointed members of the council of directors of the 

Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military 

Medicine from four to six members. 

217 

Cessation of requirement for mental health assessment of 

members after redeployment from a contingency operation upon discharge or release from the Armed Forces 

(sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074m of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement to provide a mental health assessment (MHA) to a servicemember after redeployment if the individual has been discharged from military service. Under current law, there is no requirement to provide an MHA to a servicemember 90 to 180 days 

after redeployment if the individual has been discharged; however, 

the cessation of the requirement to provide an MHA after a member has been discharged does not currently apply to MHAs required 

at 180 days to 18 months after redeployment and 18 months to 30 

months after redeployment. 

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

724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to conduct a pilot 

program, for a period not greater than 5 years, to assess the feasibility and advisability of partnerships between special operations 

forces and institutions of higher education, and health systems if 

determined appropriate by the Assistant Secretary, through which 

special operations forces medics earn credit towards a master’s degree of physician assistant for military operational work and training. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 

an initial report, within 180 days of the date of the enactment of 

this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives, that describes: (1) A comprehensive 

framework for the military education to be provided under the program; (2) Metrics to be used to assess the effectiveness of the program; and (3) Mechanisms to be used by the Department, medics, 

or both to cover the costs of education received by medics. 

In addition, the Secretary of Defense would submit a final report, 

not later than 180 days after completion of the pilot program, to 

the same committees, which provides an: (1) Evaluation of the pilot 

program using the metrics of assessment set forth in the initial report; (2) Assessment of the utility of funding mechanisms as set 

forth in the initial report; (3) Assessment of the effects of the program on recruitment and retention of special operations forces 

medics; and (4) Assessment of the feasibility and advisability of extending any authorities for joint professional military education 

under chapter 107 of title 10, United States Code, to warrant officers or enlisted personnel. 

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations 

for specialized medical training (sec. 725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, for a period of not 

more than 3 years, to assess the feasibility and advisability of establishing partnerships with public, private, and non-profit organizations and institutions to provide short-term specialized medical 

218 

training to advance the medical skills and capabilities of military 

medical providers. Prior to commencement of the pilot program, the 

Secretary would establish metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the program. The provision would require the Secretary to submit 

an initial report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 180 days prior to initiation 

of the pilot program that includes a description of the program, the 

metrics used to evaluate the program, and any other matters relating to the program that the Secretary considers appropriate. Not 

later than 180 days after the completion of the pilot program, the 

Secretary would submit a final report to the same committees that 

includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the program. The 

committee considers this provision to be an important element in 

helping military medical providers advance their skills and capabilities in specialties such as orthopedic surgery that would improve the medical readiness of the total force. 

The budget request included $32.5 billion in Defense Health Program, Operations and Maintenance. The amount authorized to be 

appropriated in Operations and Maintenance, line number 060, includes the following changes from the budget request. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

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

Registry of individuals exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances on military installations (sec. 726) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a registry for individuals 

who have been exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 

Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments for 

members of the Armed Forces and related research efforts (sec. 727) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to incorporate medical screening questions 

specific to gambling disorder into the annual periodic health assessment conducted by the Department of Defense for members of 

the Armed Forces. The provision would also require the Secretary 

to incorporate gambling disorder questions into ongoing research 

efforts, including by restoring such questions into health-related 

behavior surveys of Active-Duty and reserve component personnel. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, within 2 years of the 

date of the enactment of this Act, which describes efforts made to 

comply with this provision and provides findings of assessments 

and surveys with respect to prevalence of gambling disorder among 

members of the Armed Forces. 

Comptroller General review of Defense Health Agency oversight of TRICARE managed care support contractors 

(sec. 728) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 180 days of the date of 

219 

the enactment of this Act, a report reviewing the Defense Health 

Agency’s oversight of the transition of TRICARE managed care 

support contractors. The provision would require the Comptroller 

General to conduct subsequent reviews of any transition of managed care support contractors of the TRICARE program and to submit reports to the same committees. 

Items of Special Interest 

Critical gaps in military physician specialties 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report 

titled ‘‘Military Personnel: Additional Actions Needed to Address 

Gaps in Military Physician Specialties’’ (GAO–18–77) on February 

28, 2018, which described the Department of Defense’s (DOD) gaps 

in physician authorizations (funded positions) and end strengths 

(number of physicians on hand). The report discussed how DOD’s 

approach to address physician specialty gaps ‘‘does not include targeted and coordinated strategies to address key physician shortages.’’ Additionally, the GAO established that all of the Services’ 

components (active and reserve) had several physician specialties 

at levels below 80 percent of authorized levels and that many of 

those gaps were in critically short wartime specialties, such as critical care/trauma medicine, aviation medicine, and cardiac/thoracic 

surgery. 

Currently, the Services primarily rely on the Armed Forces 

Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP) and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) to access physicians. While the Services ‘‘generally meet their AFHPSP 

and USUHS recruitment goals,’’ they continually experience gaps 

in critical specialties because the Services do not ‘‘channel students 

into residencies for the specialties in most critical need.’’ Moreover, 

the GAO concluded that most medical students met minimal qualifications for acceptance into the AFHPSP and the USUHS but the 

DOD does not consistently track data on its students, ‘‘potentially 

hindering opportunities to improve the quality of its accession programs.’’ Finally, the GAO found that the USUHS has not determined the costs of educating its medical students, which may 

hinder ‘‘DOD’s ability to understand its full funding needs for its 

primary accession programs.’’ 

The committee is concerned about the Department’s failure to 

comprehensively address the long-standing gaps in critical military 

physician specialties across the Services. As a result, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, by January 1, 2019, that provides a comprehensive plan addressing all of the recommendations 

in the GAO report. In addition, the plan should include the Department’s recommendations for changes to its physician accession programs, which may be required to ensure recruitment and retention 

of highly qualified physicians to address gaps in critical wartime 

medical specialties. 

220 

Emerging technologies to mitigate and prevent traumatic 

brain injury 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense for its ongoing efforts to develop mitigation/prevention strategies for traumatic 

brain injuries (TBI). These efforts include exploration of emerging 

technologies that show promise in greatly reducing the occurrence 

of TBI. The committee understands that Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center has successfully tested various innovative 

technologies to prevent TBI. To the committee’s knowledge, however, these efforts have not yet led to the rapid fielding of these 

new technologies in military training or combat environments. 

Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense 

to establish an inter-service work group to develop a joint strategy 

to identify material solutions to mitigate and prevent TBI. The 

committee believes that this strategy should include a detailed review of the recent findings from successful testing of emerging 

technologies, followed by development of a comprehensive plan for 

rapidly identifying, testing, and fielding new technologies to mitigate and prevent TBI. 

Expedited development and approval of medical products 

for emergency use on the battlefield 

The committee is aware that a top priority for the Department 

of Defense’s Combat Casualty Care Research Program is to optimize survival and recovery from combat-related injuries by advancing and improving damage control resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage, forward surgical and intensive critical care, casualty 

transport, and care for traumatic brain injury and other neurological trauma. Pathogen inactivation of blood products can facilitate the collection of blood in austere operating areas because it 

can eliminate the need for laboratory testing in such settings while 

still ensuring blood safety. To accomplish goals of optimizing survival and recovery, the Department needs to develop and transition 

to pathogen-inactivated blood products, including whole blood, 

platelets, plasma, and red blood cells that are ultimately authorized or approved for use under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Service Act in treating U.S. military 

forces. The committee encourages the Defense Health Agency to 

use Congressionally Directed Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program funding to expedite the development and approval of medical 

products for use on the battlefield. 

Explore feasibility of implementing a combat readiness assessment tool 

To ensure a more deployable, resilient force, the Services need a 

tool to validate the physical fitness of the warfighter and to aid in 

the determination of combat readiness. The committee is aware of 

technology using machine learning and force plate measurements 

that can help develop personalized, evidence-based training programs to prevent injuries in athletes. This technology could provide: (1) Accurate, actionable insights regarding the physical condition of each warfighter; and (2) A customized fitness program for 

each warfighter to help minimize injuries during combat. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to explore the feasiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
221 

bility of using this technology to assess the physical fitness of the 

warfighter. 

Extended Care Health Option respite care services 

The committee remains concerned about limitations in the Department of Defense’s respite care benefit under the Extended Care 

Health Option (ECHO) program. Congress established the ECHO 

program to substitute for State Medicaid Waiver Program services, 

which are often unavailable to highly mobile military families. The 

committee believes that the services provided by State Medicaid 

Waiver Programs should serve as the benchmark for ECHO-covered services. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Department to expand ECHO respite care services to align with the 

average number of respite hours provided by State Medicaid Waiver Programs. 

Health risk surveillance of servicemembers in the United 

States Special Operations Command 

The committee commends the efforts of the United States Special 

Operations Command to develop an information system to track 

the health status of Special Operations Forces personnel with the 

goal of proactively identifying, studying, and mitigating health risk. 

This effort is a cooperative endeavor involving the John P. Murtha 

Cancer Center at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), 

and the Oncology Research Information Exchange Network, a network of major academic centers that has developed a uniform protocol for long-term patient surveillance. The committee encourages 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), in coordination 

with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and 

Low-Intensity Conflict, to continue assisting the United States Special Operations Command in adapting this protocol for use in addressing risk and improving the overall health of military populations. 

MHS GENESIS 

The committee recognizes the importance of implementing a 

modern electronic health record system that is interoperable between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An interoperable system will ensure sharing of 

servicemembers’ health records with private sector healthcare systems and individual providers and will ease servicemembers’ transition to the VA healthcare system upon separation from military 

service. 

On May 17, 2018, VA signed a contract with Cerner Corporation 

officially ensuring deployment of DOD and VA electronic health 

records systems on the same operational platform in the future. 

This historic overhaul of the health record systems of the two largest government agencies requires transparency, accountability, and 

oversight. To ensure efficient and responsible implementation, the 

Secretary of Defense shall use existing and future inter-agency governance structures and collaboration between VA and DOD health 

record program offices to make certain a continued commitment to 

full DOD–VA interoperability and to share lessons learned and 

222 

best practices associated with the deployment and sustainment of 

MHS GENESIS. 

Mild traumatic brain injury screening tests 

The committee remains concerned that servicemembers who have 

suffered head injuries resulting in concussions or mild traumatic 

brain injuries (mTBI) may not be receiving the optimal level of 

available screening. Concussions can result in a prolonged recovery 

period with individuals reporting persistent symptoms over long 

periods of time. Individuals exposed to repetitive concussive events, 

especially those lacking early and accurate screening, are at high 

risk for long-term negative consequences to brain health, including 

the development of chronic neuro-degenerative disease. The committee is aware of approaches to screening for concussions and 

mTBI that assess rapid eye movements. Professional, collegiate, 

and amateur sports leagues have widely adopted these screening 

techniques in concussion screening protocols. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of including eye movement screening tests in the existing mTBI protocols 

for injured servicemembers. 

Procurement of telehealth solutions and services 

The committee recognizes the growing importance of telehealth 

in delivering accessible, quality healthcare to military 

servicemembers and their families. The committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on limited competition awards for telehealth services and has not always implemented the most effective telehealth solutions. The committee expects the DOD to use commercial-off-the-shelf technology solutions 

and non-developmental items and to limit excessively restrictive 

specification standards that may restrict or eliminate fair and open 

competition to provide the most effective telehealth services available. 

Prostate cancer incidence among Active-Duty 

servicemembers 

The committee recognizes that prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men and the second leading cause of cancer mortality. In men younger than age 65, the prostate cancer mortality 

rate for African-Americans is 3.1 times greater than in Caucasians. 

In Americans age 65 and older, the mortality rate for AfricanAmerican males is 2.3 times greater than Caucasians. More research is needed to better understand the incidence of prostate cancer rates by race among Active-Duty servicemembers, as well as 

any existing disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate 

cancer in this population. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

evaluate and provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 180 days 

that: (1) Examines the incidence of prostate cancer by race among 

Active-Duty servicemembers, including information detailing disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer with a 

focus on African-American men; and (2) Describes a plan for adVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
223 

dressing any disparities and expanding access to diagnosis and 

treatment options for Active-Duty servicemembers. 

Rapid cerebral therapeutic hypothermia 

The committee is aware of the benefits of therapeutic hypothermia for traumatic brain injury, as well as its applications for 

various conditions including cardiac arrest, severe blood loss due to 

combat injury, and heat stroke. Recent evidence indicates that rapidly applied brain cooling can reduce or prevent brain damage even 

in cases of mild injury, such as concussion. The current evidencebased recommendation is to initiate therapeutic hypothermia as 

soon as possible, as brain damage can occur immediately after an 

incident. The committee encourages the Department to explore 

non-invasive, lightweight devices that rapidly initiate localized cerebral cooling at the point of the injury. 

Regenerative medicine research and development 

The Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) 

delivers new technologies that will lead to functional and aesthetic 

recovery from severe injuries incurred in military service. AFIRM 

has advanced the development of restorative therapies for battlefield trauma, and this important work has led to 18 clinical trials 

with 3 trials already completed. Many technical challenges remain, 

however, before the Department of Defense (DOD) can realize the 

full potential of regenerative medicine in restoring the health and 

performance of wounded warfighters. 

The committee is aware of the many emerging breakthrough 

treatments for severely wounded servicemembers that have resulted from AFIRM’s public-private consortium approach to regenerative medicine research and development. The committee encourages the DOD to sustain the pace of scientific advances and military-relevant technology development in regenerative medicine 

through another multiyear public-private consortium modeled on 

AFIRM’s two previous research and development consortium efforts. 

TRICARE access study 

Not later than 180 days from the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration, shall submit to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Ways and 

Means of the House of Representatives a report on the number of 

individuals who: (1) Are retired from the Armed Forces under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code; (2) Are entitled to hospital 

insurance benefits under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act pursuant to receiving benefits for 24 months as described in 

subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

426(b)(2)); and (3) Because of such entitlement, are no longer enrolled in TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Select (as those terms are 

defined in section 1072 of title 10, United States Code) under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. 

(225) 

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

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Permanent Supply Chain Risk Management Authority (sec. 

801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permanently 

extend the authority provided in section 806 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383) regarding the management of supply chain risk and 

would clarify the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make determinations under the authority to apply throughout the Department of 

Defense. 

Commercially available market research (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2431a of title 10, United States Code, to define the market research requirement of major defense acquisition program acquisition strategies. This provision is intended to improve the Department of Defense’s capacity to conduct market research by diversifying the sources and methods used. 

The committee notes that a growing share of the Department’s 

spending is on information technology products and services and 

believes robust market research is critical to acquisition planning. 

The committee believes that sufficient attention is not being given 

to market research and is concerned that the Department’s sources 

of data for market research are limited and lack diversity. 

The committee therefore encourages the Department’s contracting officers to use commercially available detailed third-party 

market research, which should include any disclosures of a thirdparty’s interests and which should be considered by contracting officers in the context of all available data sources, to ensure that 

they have the best and most complete information available in developing and executing their acquisition strategies. 

Comptroller General assessment on acquisition programs 

and related initiatives (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, to establish an annual assessment by the Comptroller General of the United States of Department of Defense acquisition programs and initiatives. 

The committee notes that the Comptroller General’s annual assessment of selected weapons programs has been a highly valued 

product supporting the defense committees’ oversight for over 15 

years. The Comptroller General’s reviews over the past decade on 

226 

major automated information systems, and defense business systems have similarly facilitated such oversight. 

The committee notes with concern that the Department of Defense’s warfighting, business, and enterprise capabilities are increasingly reliant on or driven by software and information technology. The Department of Defense is behind other Federal agencies and industry in implementing best practices for acquisition of 

software and information technology capabilities, to include agile 

and incremental development methods along with associated training, tools, and infrastructure. 

The committee believes that, given the role of software and information technology in acquisition programs and initiatives across 

the Department both to conduct its missions as well as to balance 

its books, the Comptroller General’s assessments must continue to 

keep pace. 

Further, the committee notes that recent years have seen the 

most significant reform of the Department’s acquisition function 

since the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–23), to include expansion of acquisition authorities, organizational realignments, delegation of acquisition execution to the 

Services, and rapid acquisition and prototyping authorities and offices. 

The committee notes that, in past work on weapons systems, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has developed criteria for 

analysis and oversight over programs. The committee expects that 

similar work from other areas within the organization can lead to 

similar methodologies for software and alternative acquisition 

pathways. Accordingly, this provision directs the Comptroller General to consolidate separate reporting on these initiatives, 

leveraging assessment criteria from across the GAO and outside experts, in order to provide a cohesive analysis that recognizes the 

complexity of the acquisition system. The provision also repeals an 

obsolete GAO reporting requirement. 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Department of Defense contracting dispute matters (sec. 

811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a study of the frequency and effects of bid protests involving the same Department of Defense contract award or proposed award that have been filed at both the 

Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, 

and establish a data collection system to better track and analyze 

bid protest trends in the future. 

The committee notes that the Rand study on the bid protest process (‘‘Assessing Bid Protest of U.S. Department of Defense Procurements’’’) mandated by the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 114–328) recommended that policymakers and Department of Defense leadership should ‘‘consider implementing an expedited process for adjudicating bid protests of 

procurement contracts with values under $0.1 million.’’ The committee believes that this type of expedited process, akin to a traffic 

227 

court, would help resolve smaller and generally simpler cases commensurate with their value while preserving the right to an independent protest. 

Continuation of technical data rights during challenges 

(sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2321(i) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the government may continue to exercise rights in technical data and noncommercial computer software during the course of a challenge 

with an incumbent contractor under section 2321(d) of title 10, 

United States Code, or under procedures established by the Department of Defense, to meet Department of Defense mission requirements and readiness needs during the course of the challenge. 

Increased micro-purchase threshold (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1902(a)(1) of title 41, United States Code, to align the micropurchase threshold for the Department of Defense to the micro-purchase threshold for all government agencies at $10,000. 

Modification of limitations on single source task or delivery 

order contracts (sec. 814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2304a(d)(3)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the applicable standard for task or delivery order contract awards. 

Preliminary cost analysis requirement for exercise of 

multiyear contract authority (sec. 815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2306b(i)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to require that 

the preliminary findings of the agency head be supported by a preliminary cost analysis by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). 

Currently, section 2306b(i)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, 

requires preliminary findings of the agency head to be made after 

the completion of a cost analysis performed by the Director of 

CAPE. 

The intent of this provision is to streamline the multiyear procurement contract legislative proposal process through the Director 

of CAPE and the agency head’s conducting cost analysis simultaneously, rather than sequentially, to enable timely submission and 

ample consideration of such legislative proposals by the congressional defense committees. 

Inclusion of best available information regarding past performance of subcontractors and joint venture partners 

(sec. 816) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Federal Acquisition 

Regulatory Council and the Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to 

develop policies for the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure the 

best information regarding past performance of certain subcontracVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
228 

tors and joint venture partners is available when awarding DOD 

contracts. 

Modification of criteria for waivers of requirement for certified cost and price data (sec. 817) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical change to section 817 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314; 10 U.S.C 

2306a note). 

Subcontracting price and approved purchasing systems 

(sec. 818) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 893 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to clarify that, for Department of Defense contracts with contractors that have approved purchasing systems as defined by section 44.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, a contracting officer must have a written approval from his or her program manager prior to withholding consent based solely on disagreement with the proposed subcontract 

price. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on progress 

payment financing of Department of Defense contracts 

(sec. 819) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, no 

later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to 

the congressional defense committees on the results of an analysis 

of the effects of current financing levels of defense contracts on defense contractors and Defense budgets. 

Authorization to limit foreign access to technology through 

contracts (sec. 820) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to include in the terms of any contract provisions that would limit access by select persons or organizations to sensitive technology, and 

authorize the potential forfeit of intellectual property rights if these 

terms were violated. 

Briefing requirement on services contracts (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to 

brief the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, on the progress of Department of Defense efforts to meet the 

requirements of section 23239(b) of title 10, United States Code, including relevant information on the methodology and implementation plans for future compliance. 

229 

Sense of Congress on awarding of contracts to responsible 

companies that primarily employ American workers and 

do not actively transfer American jobs to potential adversaries (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should award 

contracts to responsible companies that primarily employ United 

States workers or are partners in the national technology and industrial base and do not actively transfer United States jobs to potential adversaries. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Program cost, fielding, and performance goals in planning 

major acquisition programs (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2448a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the designated milestone decision authority is the individual responsible 

for ensuring the accomplishment of the stated goals for a major defense acquisition program. 

Implementation of recommendations of the Independent 

Study on Consideration of Sustainment in Weapons Systems Life Cycle (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to implement certain recommendations from 

the Independent Study on Consideration of Sustainment in Weapon 

Systems Life Cycle, which was conducted as required by section 

844 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328). 

The report’s findings highlight that the Department of Defense 

has not given proper consideration to sustainment issues during 

the development and acquisition process. In particular, the report 

found that specific issues related to technical data rights and intellectual property were not properly considered during development 

and acquisition for certain programs and types of programs. Furthermore, the report observed that once systems are in 

sustainment, the non-consideration of these issues limits the ability 

of the Department to effectively modernize systems. 

The committee believes that it is critically important to consider 

the findings and recommendations of this report. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program for the Secretary of Defense to reform and accelerate 

the contracting and pricing processes associated with major weapons systems programs through basing price reasonableness determinations on actual cost and pricing data for purchases of the same 

or similar products for the Department of Defense and reducing the 

cost and pricing data to be submitted in accordance with section 

2306a of title 10, United States Code. This authority would expire 

on January 2, 2021. 

230 

The committee remains concerned with the continued challenges 

of cost overruns and long delays in acquiring major weapons system programs, many of which are caused by the overly bureaucratic way in which the Department of Defense does business. This 

provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to explore, through 

a pilot program, alternative ways to transform the Department’s 

business model to solve the recurring problem of obtaining the correct information in a timely manner to expedite negotiations and 

deliver major weapons systems on time and within budget. 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce 

Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to 

acquisition personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1762 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a permanent 

authority for personnel programs for employees in the Department 

of Defense civilian acquisition workforce and supporting personnel 

assigned to work directly with that workforce. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Chairman of the Defense Business Board to convene an integrated 

review team with members of the Defense Innovation Board and 

Defense Science Board to undertake a study on the exchange of defense industry personnel on term assignments within the Department. The study shall review: (1) Legal, ethical, and financial disclosure requirements for industry-government exchanges; (2) Existing or previous industry-government exchange programs; and (3) 

How the military departments address legal, ethical, and financial 

requirements for reserve component servicemembers who also 

maintain civilian employment in the defense industry. The team 

shall also produce recommendations to reduce barriers to industrygovernment exchange while ensuring financial and ethical integrity 

to protect the best interests of the Department. 

The committee is aware of benefits garnered from the exchange 

of government employees with private industry and academia. 

However, the committee is aware that private sector employees 

may face barriers to participating in exchange programs with the 

Department of Defense. The committee believes that reciprocal exchanges provide value for both parties and encourage the flow of 

ideas and best practices. 

Exchange program for acquisition workforce employees 

(sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish an exchange program that would 

temporarily assign civilian personnel working in the defense acquisition workforce, as defined by chapter 87 of title 10, United States 

Code, to a rotational program that would broaden the skills and expertise of participants and improve communication within and integration of the acquisition community. 

231 

The committee notes that section 1723 of title 10, United States 

Code, directs the Secretary of Defense to encourage the acquisition 

workforce’s self-development and develop key work experiences for 

the acquisition workforce. The committee believes that the exchange program authorized in this provision would support the Department of Defense’s ongoing efforts to enhance the acquisition 

workforce and improve acquisition outcomes. 

Subtitle E—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items 

Report on commercial item procurement reform (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to conduct a review no 

later than March 1, 2020 of commercial item procurement reform, 

including recommendations by the independent panel created by 

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) (Section 809 Panel) and provisions 

from recent National Defense Authorization Acts, and an analysis 

of the treatment of commercial services contracts as compared to 

commercial products. The Assistant Secretary shall provide an interim briefing on the methodology, goals, expected timeline for completion, and composition of the team conducting the review to the 

congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

The committee remains committed to pursuing ongoing reforms 

to commercial item procurement including through implementation 

of recommendations from the Section 809 Panel, among other entities. The committee is encouraged by the discussion of this important topic. However, the committee believes that Department of Defense leadership should be engaged in this discussion. 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters 

National technology and industrial base application process 

(sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

process for consideration of products to be included within the 

scope of the National Technology and Industrial Base. The committee believes that this process will allow decision makers to take 

a more strategic and comprehensive view and apply rigorous military requirements and economic-based analysis to the maintenance 

of robust and critical manufacturing capabilities for the Department of Defense. 

Report on defense electronics industrial base (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report by the Secretary of Defense, no later than January 31, 2019, 

that would examine the health of the defense electronics industrial 

base both domestically and within the national technology and industrial base. The committee remains concerned about the erosion 

of the domestic electronics supply chain, and encourages the Department to leverage existing resources, including the Executive 

Agent for Printed Circuit Board and Interconnect Technology, to 

ensure the availability and integrity of military electronics. To that 

232 

end, the committee supports broadening the Department’s microelectronics initiatives to include the broader electronics industrial 

base in order to more comprehensively address gaps across the 

electronics supply chain. 

Support for defense manufacturing communities to support 

the defense industrial base (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with authority to establish a program to make 

long-term investments in critical skills, infrastructure, research 

and development, and small business support in order to strengthen the national security innovation base, working in coordination 

with the defense manufacturing institutes. 

Subtitle G—Other Transactions 

Change to notification requirement for other transactions 

(sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

congressional notification requirements for the use of Other Transactions. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and 

the Service Acquisition Executives of the military departments to 

collect data on the use of other transactions. The data should be 

stored in a manner that affords to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition access at any time. The provision would also 

require the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to analyze and leverage these data to update policy and guidance related 

to the use of other transactions. 

Subtitle H—Development and Acquisition of Software 

Intensive and Digital Products and Services 

Clarifications regarding proprietary and technical data (sec. 

881) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2321(f) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the application of rights in technical data relating to major weapons systems. 

This provision would also amend section 2320 of title 10, United 

States Code, to clarify the application of licensing of appropriate intellectual property to support major weapons systems with regard 

to preferences for specially negotiated licenses. 

The committee notes that both government and industry stakeholders continue to express concern over conflicting legal interpretations based on changes to rights in technical data made by section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) and changes to rights in proprietary 

data made by section 835 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). Therefore, the committee recommends a return to previous law and encourages the 

233 

Department of Defense to give clear guidance on the use of technical data and intellectual property in support of major weapons 

systems in conjunction with the recommendations provided by the 

government-industry advisory panel created by section 813 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92). 

Implementation of recommendations of the final report of 

the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Design 

and Acquisition of Software for Defense Systems (sec. 

882) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to implement certain recommendations of the 

Defense Science Board Task Force in their report on the Design 

and Acquisition of Software for Defense Systems. 

The report contained seven recommendations on how to improve 

software acquisition in defense systems, to include the idea of the 

software factory, which underpins all other actions the Department 

of Defense might take in this area. The committee agrees with the 

report’s emphasis on shifting the Department of Defense’s treatment of software as solely a development activity to understanding 

that it is enduring and that, therefore, traditional models of hardware sustainment are not suited to the treatment of software in 

the acquisition process. Further recommendations pertained to 

iterative development, how to incorporate metrics in program management for software, risk reduction activities, the role of machine 

learning and autonomy in programs, and necessary competency 

within the acquisition workforce. 

The committee believes that it is critically important to consider 

the findings and recommendations of this report. 

Implementation of pilot program to use agile or iterative development methods under section 873 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (sec. 883) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide additional direction to the Secretary of Defense in implementing the 

pilot program established under section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 

has established the pilot program as directed under section 873. 

However, the committee is disappointed that, despite being directed to identify four major software-intensive warfighting systems and between four to eight defense business systems, only one 

system has been identified for realignment. 

Accordingly, the committee is selecting the systems and directing 

the Secretary of Defense to consider them as candidates in accordance with section 873. 

The committee notes that some of the systems have recently 

begun transition to agile methods or have committed to doing so 

and, as such, their inclusion in the pilot program will allow the Department of Defense to use lessons learned for other systems that 

have not yet started realignment under the pilot program. 

234 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends funding reductions for several of the systems, with the expectation that cost savings will result from realignments under the pilot. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Cloud Executive Steering Group (CESG) to conduct certain activities to enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to continue its efforts to transition its data, systems, and applications to commercial 

cloud environments. 

The committee notes the important role that the CESG has in 

supporting efforts to make optimal use of cloud computing technologies and services across the DOD. The committee encourages 

the active engagement of the members, to continue to ensure that 

cloud technologies are technically suitable, appropriately tested for 

security and reliability, and integrated with other DOD information technology efforts, so as to optimize effective and efficient procurement of such technologies and services and their performance 

in support of DOD missions. 

The committee notes that the CESG’s activities have been focused on the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure initiative and 

that much attention has been paid to whether the DOD will make 

a single award or multiple awards following the competition for 

this contract for commercial cloud services. The committee is concerned that this focus has displaced necessary attention that would 

otherwise be paid to key enablers and preconditions for commercial 

cloud services, such as establishing modern commercial networks 

and conducting workload analysis. 

The committee emphasizes the importance, to the DOD’s cloud 

transition and enterprise efficiency goals, of modernizing networks 

by adopting advanced commercial capabilities. Network modernization is essential for cybersecurity, supporting service-level agreements for cloud services, ensuring efficient cloud access, and consolidating networks. 

The committee notes that workload and migration analysis are 

critical to understanding feasibility and costs associated with the 

use of commercial cloud services. Workload analysis will reveal 

that some workloads performed by the DOD’s systems and applications face significant barriers to migration due to technical, intellectual property, and data rights issues whose scope and implications are not yet understood. Such barriers have the potential to 

fundamentally limit the potential utility of commercial cloud services to the Department. 

Further, the committee believes that such enabling activities 

must inform the Department’s decision as to whether a single or 

multiple award is in the best interest of the government, as is required under federal acquisition regulation. 

235 

Subtitle I—Other Matters 

Prohibition on certain telecommunications services or 

equipment (sec. 891) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense’s procurement of telecommunications equipment or services from Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, or any entity 

controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China. The 

provision would also prohibit entry into a contract with any entity 

that uses equipment, as a critical component of any system, from 

Huawei Technologies Company, the ZTE Corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, or any entity controlled by the 

government of the People’s Republic of China. 

Limitation on use of funds pending submittal of report on 

Army Marketing and Advertising Program (sec. 892) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit a report on the recommendations 

contained in the Army Audit Agency of the Army’s Marketing and 

Advertising Program. The report would include: (1) Mitigation and 

oversight measures to improve contract management; (2) The establishment of a review process to evaluate the effectiveness of 

marketing efforts; (3) The increase of acquisition and marketing experience within the Army Marketing and Research Group (AMRG); 

(4) An analysis of the workforces within AMRG; (5) The establishment of an Army Marketing and Advisory Board; and (6) The status on the implementation of new contracting practices recommended by the Army Audit Agency. 

Additionally, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of the 

Army from obligating 50 percent of funds available for the AMRG 

in fiscal year 2019 until the report is submitted to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives. 

Permanent SBIR and STTR authority for the Department of 

Defense (sec. 893) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 638 of title 15, United States Code, to provide a permanent authority for the Small Business Innovation Research program 

(SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer program 

(STTR) in the Department of Defense. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2373 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense and the service secretaries to buy telecommunications 

supplies for experimental or test purposes. 

Access by developmental and operational testing activities 

to data regarding modeling and simulation activity (sec. 

895) 

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure the 

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and other developVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
236 

mental testing organizations be given access to all data associated 

with certain modeling and simulation activities supporting the acquisition of military capabilities. 

Items of Special Interest 

Analysis of technical and security issues in Department of 

Defense business systems 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

faces many challenges in maintaining modern business systems to 

support critical defense missions and activities. The committee further notes that Secretary Mattis has made Defense business reform 

a key tenet of his management agenda. The committee is concerned 

that there may be real or perceived technical or security issues associated with moving away from large enterprise scale business 

systems and moving to smaller systems, including those that can 

better leverage commercial or government cloud computing services. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to initiate an independent technical analysis of technical and security 

barriers to incorporating more modern information technology in 

business systems. The analysis should document case studies and 

lessons learned from government applications that already have 

used and operated with modern information technology development practices, standards, and services, as well as to determine the 

feasibility of using these practices, standards, and services for new 

capabilities or new starts for DOD business systems. The committee notes that, to optimize both cost and performance of these 

systems, experts have identified attributes for system suitability 

and quality, including changeability, stability, scalability, 

testability, effectiveness, security, documentation, developer base, 

and ease of installation. The committee believes that analysis of 

DOD’s ability to produce systems with these kinds of attributes 

should be a key element of this analytic effort. The committee directs that this analysis should be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Assessment of Superior Supplier Incentive Programs 

The committee observes that the Department of Defense has undertaken various efforts to identify and reward high performing 

contractors, to include a Preferred Supplier Program and the recent 

direction to the Military Departments to implement Superior Supplier Incentive Programs. Not later than March 1, 2019, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment, in consultation with the Service Acquisition Executives of the military departments, to assess the implementation of 

such programs in achieving their original objectives. 

Incorporation of agile methods for testing in prototyping 

and streamlined fielding initiatives 

The committee notes the Department of Defense has taken seriously the acceleration of development and deployment of capabilities to the warfighter, which the committee believes are needed to 

237 

keep up with rapidly changing technologies and threats. The committee is encouraged that such efforts are drawing inspiration from 

the successful private sector use of agile acquisition and other 

iterative development methods that are connecting development 

and operations, often referred to as ‘‘DevOps,’’ especially for software systems. 

One key tenet of these successful programs is the ability to deliver functioning, viable products to market so as to satisfy the 

needs of customers, whether they are commercial or military. This 

ability is based on the robust and practically continuous testing of 

systems as part of development, so as to discover and address technical and operational issues within the development cycle and with 

minimal cost. 

The committee is concerned that an emphasis on rapid fielding 

without such explicit consideration of testing may result in deployment of systems that are not effective, secure, scalable, or interoperable and that the Department of Defense’s efforts to date have 

not yet included appropriate mechanisms to involve the testing 

community. The committee directs the Director, Operational Test 

and Evaluation, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment, and Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to jointly ensure that policies, procedures, and guidance 

reflect early involvement and integration of the test community 

into these accelerated development and fielding efforts, including 

mechanisms to make test and evaluation resources available as 

soon as initiatives are started in order to field rapidly. 

The committee directs that this activity be conducted in conjunction with the rapid capabilities office, the Services, the Strategic 

Capabilities Office, and organizations tasked with similar prototyping efforts. 

Master plan for organic industrial base infrastructure 

The committee notes the importance of the organic defense industrial base in restoring and maintaining readiness for the military services. The committee further notes that sequestration coupled with multiple years of continuing resolutions has required the 

Department to take risk in a multitude of mission essential areas 

to include facilities infrastructure. The committee is concerned that 

the Department does not have a facilities infrastructure master 

plan for its depots, air logistics centers, and fleet readiness centers 

similar to the congressionally mandated Navy Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan as well as the Long-Range Facilities and 

Construction Planning at Army Ammunition Plants and Arsenals. 

The committee notes that the 20-year plan the Navy has developed for its public shipyards improves not only its equipment and 

facilities, but also the overall layout and configuration of its facilities and equipment leading to reduced man days and cost. Furthermore, the Navy states that it will be able to conduct additional 

maintenance leading to higher readiness rates once projects are 

completed on a rolling basis. At this time, the committee believes 

that existing organic facilities may not be ideally designed, placed, 

sized, or configured to support the current work processes, leading 

to inefficiencies. The committee believes that such a plan for the 

other organic facilities would not only reduce costs and mainteVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
238 

nance backlog but lead to higher readiness rates across the services 

and provide a better strategy for future planning. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, 

Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with their respective service chiefs, to submit individual service reports by February 1, 2019, on an engineering master plan for 

the optimal placement and consolidation of facilities and major 

equipment to support depot level repair functions of its government-owned and government-operated facilities and an investment 

strategy to address the facilities, major equipment, and infrastructure requirements at organic facilities under the jurisdiction of the 

respective service. The report shall include, but not be limited to, 

the following elements: (1) A review of current and projected workload requirements to assess efficiencies in the use of existing facilities including consideration of new weapon system characteristics, 

obsolescence of facilities, siting of facilities and equipment, and various constrained process flows; (2) An analysis of life-cycle costs to 

repair and modernize existing mission-essential facilities versus 

the cost to consolidate functions into modern, right-sized waterfront 

facilities to meet current and programmed future mission requirements; (3) A master plan for each facility incorporating the results 

of a review of industrial processes, logistics streams and workload 

distribution; and (4) An updated investment strategy planned for 

each public facility, including timelines to complete the master plan 

for each facility, a list of projects and brief scopes of work, and cost 

estimates necessary to complete projects for mission essential facilities. 

Serviceability and control of technical data 

The committee is concerned about issues presented by machine 

learning technology relating to U.S. government and vendor ownership, use rights, documentation, and transportability of data, algorithms, and derivative technical data, such as models and other 

outputs created in the performance of machine learning services 

under a contract or other agreement, excluding the vendor’s preexisting algorithm in its original state, prior to its evolution based 

on processing of the government’s data and exposure to the government’s business processes. The issue of ownership and use rights 

extends to the vendor’s future sales and applications of algorithms 

and models that were matured and derived from government data, 

especially where applications involve national security. The Department of Defense has a strong interest in obtaining government purpose rights for machine learning technology developed through government processes with government money, especially when there 

are national security reasons for the government to protect this 

technical data for government use and for the government to track 

where and if it is being used outside of the government in the future. 

The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment of these issues and develop policies and guidance for the Department. The committee urges the 

Deputy Secretary to use the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional 

Team, the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center that the Department 

recently announced it would create, the Defense Innovation Board, 

239 

and the expertise of the Defense Science Board and the Defense 

Digital Service to assist in the development of policy and guidance. 

The committee directs the Deputy Secretary to complete the assessment and provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, and 

to notify the committees when policies and guidance are issued. 

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

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has long operated products that are identical to those in civil use, 

including aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. These commercial derivative products have been certified by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), which has an effective system for approving 

parts, repairs, and alterations. The FAA’s existing certification 

process allows the DOD to maintain its commercial derivative fleet 

without duplicative review or approval. The committee believes 

leveraging existing FAA certifications can provide the DOD cost 

and schedule efficiencies that should be pursued to the greatest extent practicable. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Department to prioritize the 

use of non-developmental and commercially available items with 

existing FAA certifications as long as the use of those products do 

not compromise safety or security requirements established by the 

Department of Defense. 

(241) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 

Matters 

Powers and duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering in connection with priority 

emerging technologies (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD 

(R&E)) the authority to direct the military departments and other 

elements of the Department of Defense with regard to four priority 

emerging technologies-hypersonics, directed energy, space satellite 

architectures, and artificial intelligence. This authority will be limited to one year and require renewal by the relevant congressional 

defense committees. 

The committee recognizes the central importance of the USD 

(R&E) for achieving the technological superiority referenced within 

the National Defense Strategy and chose these specific technologies 

based on their paramount importance to the future fight. The provision would include a limitation on this authority in order to ensure its usage is consistent with the committee’s intent. The committee urges coordination between the USD (R&E) and the military 

departments, instead of the usage of this authority, as the first resort for decisions about the development of these technologies. 

Redesignation and modification of responsibilities of Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (sec. 

902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 136 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel. This provision would also make 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel the Chief Human 

Capital Officer for the Department of Defense. 

The committee notes that over half of the annual defense budget 

goes toward human capital in the form of military, civilian, and 

contracted personnel. Yet despite its importance, the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness continues 

to be subject to instability caused by rapid turnover of senior leaders and lack of a consistent mission. This committee continues to 

hear constant frustration from Department of Defense senior leaders that there is a great lack of strategic workforce planning within 

the Department, which results in there being no coherent consolidation of hiring policies and no guidance on pathways to expedite 

hiring, management, or movement of the Department’s workforce 

242 

in order to assist the Department in getting its most valuable resources, its people, on board and in the right positions to best help 

with the rapidly evolving mission of the Department. The Under 

Secretary for Personnel should be the Chief Human Capital Officer 

and the responsible official on these issues vital to the success of 

the Defense workforce. 

Additionally, while a senior civilian official in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense must have responsibility for readiness policy 

and oversight, this Under Secretary is not in the optimal position 

to do so. The committee notes that neither the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, nor any of that official’s subordinate leaders has been sought to testify on readiness in the numerous hearings that the congressional defense committees have 

held in recent years in their prioritization of military readiness recovery. The committee believes that readiness is a strategic issue 

that is better addressed by civilian officials who have responsibility 

for defense strategy, plans, and force development. Elsewhere in 

this legislation, the committee recommends a provision that realigns responsibility for readiness within the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense to improve and enhance oversight of this critical issue. 

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to determine what 

activities, such as training policies, force education, and language 

instruction, which are currently addressed as readiness issues but 

would be better addressed as personnel issues for which responsibility should be retained by this Under Secretary. 

This provision would ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel is clearly focused on his primary responsibility, managing the Department’s human resources. Additionally, the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel would be tasked with serving as 

the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer, responsible for setting workforce development strategy and aligning the Department’s 

human resources policies, healthcare policies, and programs with 

the Department’s mission, strategic goals, and performance outcomes. The committee expects that this role will not be delegated 

to a lower level. 

Further, the committee notes that section 907 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

404) reduced the total number of authorized Assistant Secretaries 

of Defense from 14 to 13, and eliminated specific titles for all but 

three. This change in law allows the Secretary of Defense more discretion to make effective use of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense 

within the Department. The committee notes that the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Readiness, a position that since creation 

has not been filled by a Senate-confirmed nominee, is a position 

that may be best suited for another Under Secretariat in the Department. Alternatively, the Assistant Secretary position within 

the Personnel Under Secretariat should be repurposed to better 

serve the primary functions of that office by focusing on strategic 

workforce planning, eliminating egregious hiring lag times, and developing and implementing flexible workforce authorities to better 

enable the Department of Defense to recruit and retain the talent 

it needs for a complex mission. 

243 

Modification of responsibilities of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to express clearly that the primary duties of this senior official are the 

development of defense strategy and the translation of that strategy into detailed policy guidance for force development, operational 

planning, defense posture, joint force assessment, and readiness. 

The committee notes that the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy has become increasingly consumed by specific activities—such as interagency meetings, foreign travel, and regional 

issues—at the expense of higher priority functions, first among 

which is ensuring that the strategic and operational requirements 

for the joint force, both present and future, are sufficiently addressed and funded in the Department of Defense’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process. This is an indispensable role for which no other senior civilian below the Secretary 

and Deputy Secretary of Defense is responsible. In this way, it is 

the Under Secretary’s unique duty to advise and assist the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense in developing detailed policy guidance to direct and assess the development of the joint force, 

the employment and posture of the force, and the associated readiness requirements to execute the priorities of the National Defense 

Strategy, while providing the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of 

Defense with high-quality advice, based on rigorous strategic assessments, to inform their decisions on how to allocate resources to 

shape the joint force. 

The committee acknowledges that, to date, the statutory duties 

of the Under Secretary have been vaguely defined. The committee 

seeks to redress that oversight by clearly establishing in statute, 

through this provision, what it sees as the most important responsibilities of the Under Secretary and the criteria the committee will 

prioritize in evaluating the background, experience, and qualifications of nominees for this position in order to execute its advise and 

consent duties. 

Report on allocation of former responsibilities of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to report on decisions taken as part of the reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to allocate the responsibilities 

that are referenced in United States Code. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, Assessments, Readiness, and Capabilities (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Strategy, Plans, Assessments, Readiness, and Capabilities effective 

as of February 1, 2019. 

One of the committee’s highest priorities in recent years has been 

improving the ability of the Department of Defense to develop and 

implement strategy. The National Defense Authorization Act for 

244 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) replaced the Quadrennial 

Defense Review with a framework for a more focused, coherent, 

and prioritized National Defense Strategy. The committee applauds 

the Secretary of Defense’s efforts in crafting the National Defense 

Strategy, which clearly addresses our eroding military advantage, 

prioritizes the threats posed by great power competitors, and acknowledges that the current joint force must change to meet those 

threats. 

However, the committee recognizes that the ultimate success of 

the National Defense Strategy will depend on implementation guided by strong civilian leadership in the Department of Defense determined to make the difficult choices that are required to align 

policies, authorities, organizations, requirements, and investments 

with the National Defense Strategy, informed by a realistic assessment of available resources. 

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has long 

been responsible for developing strategy and providing associated 

policy guidance for force development, operational planning, and 

defense posture. However, the committee has grown concerned that 

these policy functions have atrophied over many years and do not 

always receive sufficient attention from senior policy leaders. One 

such function that has become particularly moribund is the performance of detailed joint force assessments at the campaign, operational, and mission levels that are essential for better defining the 

capability, posture, planning, and readiness requirements that are 

needed to execute the National Defense Strategy. This is a different function than that performed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, which is largely focused more narrowly on evaluating service program and budget requests. 

Similarly, the committee believes that responsibility for readiness policy and oversight is currently misaligned in the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, where it is viewed as a personnel matter 

under the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness, rather than as a strategic matter, focused on the 

proverbial question of ‘‘ready for what?’’ and addressed together 

with related operational issues, such as force planning. The committee believes that these organizational problems help to explain 

why joint force readiness and modernization have both experienced 

mounting crises, despite sufficient warning of growing external 

threats and internal shortcomings. 

In recommending this provision, the committee seeks to ensure 

that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense are better supported on matters of defense strategy, force planning, and readiness. This provision would align the critical functions necessary to 

exert strong civilian leadership in the development of defense strategy and its translation into detailed policy to guide investments in 

necessary capabilities, readiness, and posture for the future joint 

force. Many of these functions are currently assigned to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities in 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. This provision would add to these functions strategic readiness responsibilities, a renewed emphasis on producing rigorous joint force assessments, and any additional policy and oversight duties for strategic 

245 

capabilities, as determined by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy. 

In reallocating responsibility for readiness in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the committee is assigning to the Assistant 

Secretary responsibility for readiness as a strategic matter, currently lacking in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: namely, the 

production of detailed policy guidance to define the strategic, campaign, and operational objectives that the joint force must be ready 

to achieve, the implementation of the National Defense Strategy 

and associated campaign and contingency planning guidance, and 

the formulation of criteria that would be used to assess whether 

the joint force is, in fact, ready to achieve these results. As part of 

these duties, this Assistant Secretary would be responsible for conducting rigorous assessments of joint force performance through 

modeling and simulations, such as war games, and the observation 

of service and joint exercises. 

The Assistant Secretary’s unique responsibility in matters of 

readiness is defining and assessing readiness ‘‘outcomes,’’ not 

measuring or collating readiness ‘‘inputs.’’ The committee believes 

that the latter function is of limited utility without the former and 

should be performed by other civilian officials in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense. Many of those duties, such as training policies, force education, and language instruction, are more accurately 

viewed as personnel matters and should be handled as such. Similarly, the committee believes that the Assistant Secretary should 

not be responsible for collating readiness reporting data and related functions that attempt to measure inputs that generate readiness. The committee views functions such as these as subordinate 

to the strategic matters of defining ‘‘readiness for what?’’ and expects the Secretary of Defense to realign these subordinate functions, as well as responsibility for them, based on the policy guidance that the Assistant Secretary produces on behalf of the Secretary to implement the National Defense Strategy. 

The committee strongly believes that the responsibility for strategy, plans, assessments, readiness, and capabilities are best performed within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, considering the critical linkages they share with the regional 

and functional defense policy issues for which the Under Secretary 

is also responsible. However, if these so-called ‘‘outside the building’’ duties continue to take precedence over the so-called ‘‘inside 

the building’’ duties detailed in this provision, the committee will 

seriously reevaluate whether the functions being assigned to this 

Assistant Secretary of Defense should instead be removed from the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and vested in 

a senior official who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. 

Clarification of responsibilities and duties of the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 

906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the responsibilities and duties of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of 

the Department of Defense by specifically delineating its authorities from those assigned to the Chief Management Officer (CMO) 

246 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91). 

Section 910 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) designated the CMO as the CIO of 

the Department for the purposes of Defense business systems (10 

U.S.C. 2222). The provision assigned the CMO the responsibility of 

administering the duties and responsibilities specified in sections 

11315 and 11319 of title 40, section 3506(a)(2) of title 44, and section 2223(a) of title 10 for business systems and management. The 

provision also assigned the CMO with any responsibilities, duties, 

and powers relating to business systems or management that are 

exercisable by a chief information officer for the Department, other 

than those responsibilities, duties, and powers of a chief information officer that are vested in the Chief Information Officer of the 

Department of Defense by section 142 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Specification of certain duties of the Defense Technical Information Center (sec. 907) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

duties of the Defense Technical Information Center to include execution of the Global Research Watch program and the development 

and maintenance of datasets and data repositories on research and 

engineering activities. The provision also requires a plan for the assumption of these duties. 

Limitation on termination of, and transfer of functions, responsibilities, and activities of, the Strategic Capabilities Office (sec. 908) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

ability of the Secretary of Defense to terminate or transfer the 

functions of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) until specific 

conditions are met and certified to the congressional defense committees. These conditions include a certification that the key functions of SCO will be preserved and a plan to replicate these functions elsewhere. The plan would also require a justification if the 

entity or transferred functions were to be managed outside of the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. 

Technical corrections to Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center authority (sec. 909) 

The committee recommends a provision that would align the reporting relationship of the Test Resource Management Center to 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, as 

a conforming change reflecting the disestablishment of the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics. 

247 

Subtitle B—Organization and Management of Other 

Department of Defense Offices and Elements 

Modification of certain responsibilities of the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to joint force concept 

development (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in developing joint 

capabilities. The provision would require the Chairman to expand 

concept development efforts to include short term challenges that 

could be addressed by joint concepts, as well as the long term 

issues the Joint Staff has traditionally considered. 

The committee recognizes that not all capability gaps can, or 

should, be addressed by procurement or additional end-strength. 

Some challenges are best met through concept development effortsespecially joint concept development efforts where the capabilities 

of different Services are brought together to solve an operational 

challenge. 

The committee also recommends the Joint Staff focus on identifying current capability gaps that prevent the joint force from 

achieving the objectives of the National Defense Strategy and determining which of these gaps could potentially be addressed by 

new concepts utilizing existing joint force capabilities. The Joint 

Staff should also ensure that these new joint concepts are tested, 

assessed, and, if appropriate, fielded to support the joint force. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and 

Low-Intensity Conflict review of United States Special 

Operations Command (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC), in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), to conduct a 

comprehensive review of SOCOM for the purpose of ensuring that 

the institutional and operational capabilities of special operations 

forces (SOF) are appropriate to counter future threats across the 

spectrum of conflict. 

The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy re-orients the way the Department of Defense is to prioritize its efforts 

in an increasingly complex and dangerous global security environment. A rising People’s Republic of China and an increasingly belligerent Russian Federation are now the Department’s top strategic 

priorities, while the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and countering violent extremism remain 

enduring lines of effort. 

Over the last 16-plus years, SOCOM has largely focused its efforts on executing operations in support of the global countering 

violent extremism effort. As a result, SOCOM’s organization, training, tactics, techniques, procedures, and the development and acquisition of capabilities has prioritized this mission set. While 

countering violent extremism will remain a persistent mission for 

SOF, the severity of the threat posed by China, Russia, and other 

adversarial states across the spectrum of conflict and the release 

248 

of the National Defense Strategy represent an inflection point for 

the future of SOF. 

As such, the committee believes that the ASD SOLIC, consistent 

with his responsibilities under section 138 of title 10, United States 

Code, to ‘‘exercise authority, direction, and control of all special-operations peculiar administrative matters relating to the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces,’’ should 

use the review required by this section as an opportunity to conduct a baseline assessment of the SOF enterprise and provide a 

strategic vision for the future of the force in order to ensure it remains a relevant and lethal component of the joint force to counter 

emerging and future threats facing the Nation. 

Qualifications for appointment as Deputy Chief Management Officer of a military department (sec. 923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create qualification criteria for military department Deputy Chief Management 

Officers to include either significant experience in business operations and management in the public sector or significant experience managing an enterprise in the private sector. 

The committee urges this change in accordance with the qualification requirements instituted for the Department of Defense 

Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and as part of the committee’s 

broader focus on ensuring attention to management expertise 

across the Department of Defense. 

Expansion of principal duties of Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (sec. 

924) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand principal duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 

Development, and Acquisition to include sustainment, including 

maintenance, of weapons systems. 

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

925) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish three cross-functional teams as directed in section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). These teams will focus, respectively, on electronic warfare, personnel security, and the 

lethality of close-combat units. The provision also would require the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense to establish or designate an office as 

the Office of Primary Responsibility for implementing section 911. 

Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) provided for the adoption of crossfunctional teams (CFTs), an innovative management tool aimed at 

enabling the Secretary of Defense to better integrate across the 

functional silos of the Department of Defense to address the most 

complex challenges. 

The intent of this legislation was to provide a powerful tool of 

small teams of experts reporting regularly and directly to the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
249 

retary that could directly shape creative solutions to pressing challenges the Department faces. CFTs have been thoroughly studied 

in academia, and are widely employed in the private sector, where 

they are used to integrate diverse capabilities in pursuit of solutions to a cross-cutting problem. Within the Department, these 

teams would bring together the expertise that resides in the functional organizations but would not be burdened by the parochial interests and agendas of these separate bureaucratic stovepipes. 

These CFTs would be able to avoid the consensus-seeking, lowestcommon-denominator behavior that traditionally plagues the working groups, integrated product teams, and committees that the Department routinely forms to address cross-cutting issues. These 

CFTs would be uniquely capable of implementing the solutions to 

these issues, based on their ability to wield limited executive authority delegated directly by the Secretary to ensure compliance 

and effective execution of approved plans. 

The committee’s vision was that CFTs would foster jointness between the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the 

Services, and the combatant commands the way that the Goldwater-Nichols Act instilled jointness among the military Services 

and the combatant commands in the operational sphere. Achieving 

collaborative processes and culture and an integrated mission focus 

within the Department has been a goal of the committee since the 

time that the Goldwater-Nichols Act was conceived. 

However, the committee is increasingly concerned that the Department is lagging in its implementation of the legislation. According to a review published by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) on February 28, 2018, titled ‘‘DOD Needs to Take Additional Actions to Promote Department-Wide Collaboration’’ 

(GAO–18–194), the Department has established only one CFT and 

has not released its guidance for CFTs or provided CFT training 

to appointees, among other elements required by statute to be completed last year. The Department has missed additional reporting 

and compliance deadlines also enumerated in the GAO report. Finally, the Department has not implemented recommendations from 

the study on best practices for CFTs that it commissioned earlier 

this year, including designating an office of primary responsibility 

or studying potential inclusion of service on CFTs as a condition for 

promotion. 

The committee appreciates the magnitude of change that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328) mandated for the Department but continues to believe in 

the importance of promoting the cultural change enabled by CFTs 

across the Department. Only by integrating diverse expertise will 

the Department be able to meet its most pressing challenges. 

Therefore, the committee is directing that electronic warfare, personnel security, and close combat lethality be managed by CFTs, 

because of their high priority for the Department, and the complex, 

multi-functional nature of each program. 

The committee remains concerned that electronic warfare is a 

warfighting area where the Nation’s peer adversaries, such as 

China and Russia, are establishing asymmetric advantages over 

U.S. forces. The Defense Science Board identified numerous 

vulnerabilities in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment, 

250 

and the Department attempted to address these in the June 2017 

Department of Defense Electronic Warfare Strategy. However, the 

Department continues to approach the electronic warfare mission 

area and electromagnetic spectrum operations in an uncoordinated 

and insufficient manner that risks lagging further behind adversary efforts. A separate provision addresses the need for a designated senior official and this cross-functional team to address 

this growing challenge with a road-map that includes: a review of 

the vulnerabilities identified in the May 2015 Electronic Warfare 

assessment; an assessment of the capability of U.S. forces to conduct joint electromagnetic spectrum operations against near-peer 

adversaries; and a description of actions, performance metrics, and 

projected timelines for achieving key capabilities for electronic warfare and joint electromagnetic spectrum operations. The road-map 

would also include an analysis of any personnel, resourcing, capability, authority, or other gaps to be addressed in order to ensure 

effective implementation of the strategy across all relevant elements of the Department. The committee therefore believes the 

alignment of the electronic warfare mission is an ideal task for a 

CFT. The committee encourages the Secretary to select the most 

knowledgeable individuals from the Services, the Joint Staff, U.S. 

Strategic Command, and the Offices of the Under Secretaries for 

Policy, Acquisition, and Sustainment, Research and Engineering, 

and Personnel to work full-time on this CFT. 

The committee is also committed to the success of the Department’s personnel security mission and believes that it is another 

area ripe for CFT engagement. With the transfer of the background 

investigation function to the Department in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), the 

Department will need to conduct a review of existing policies and 

procedures for background investigations, and insider threat detection and prevention, in favor of new technologies like continuous 

evaluation. The only way for this transition to be successful is to 

have representation from all elements of the Department engaged 

and for this group to have significant leadership backing. Therefore, the committee recommends this as the second area for CFT 

attention, with special focus on the transfer of investigation responsibility, the integration of the National Background Investigation 

Services system into this process, and the resourcing of this responsibility within the Department. In addition, this team should be 

tasked to develop a plan to transition the remaining workload and 

resources of the National Background Investigations Bureau from 

the Office of Personnel Management to the Department of Defense. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has created 

a ‘‘cross-functional task force for close combat lethality’’ that bears 

all of the features of a cross-functional team as defined in section 

911 and in the Department’s independent study of best practices on 

cross-functional teams. Given this congruity, the committee is concerned that the Secretary did not designate this task force as a 

cross-functional team for the purpose of responding to section 911 

and believes that it should be recognized and managed as such. 

The committee does not believe that this designation requires any 

changes in the Task Force’s organization, management, authorities, 

251 

mission, or activities, nor does it carry any implications for the duration of the Task Force. 

With respect to the substantive work of this close combat 

lethality cross-functional team, the committee concurs in the Secretary’s judgment that the proliferation of technology has eroded 

the comparative advantage of the United States’ infantry close 

combat formations. The committee agrees also that the lethality 

and survivability of close combat formations is critical given that 

infantry formations have historically borne the majority of U.S. 

causalities in major conflicts despite comprising less than 5% of Department of Defense personnel. In light of the re-emergence of 

great power competition, it is appropriate for the Secretary to devote special attention to investments and reforms in infantry 

squad-level formations, including in personnel policies, training 

methods, human performance, and equipment. The committee is 

encouraged by the initial impact and workings of the CFT. 

The committee understands that the Secretary’s CFT is developing the concept of the infantry as an exceptionally managed career field as well as the increase in cohesion, stability and lethality 

resident in conceptualizing the ‘‘squad as a platform.’’ The committee request that the Secretary notify the committee when the 

CFT is prepared to provide a briefing on the attendant policy, authorities and resources that would be required to realize these concepts. 

Deadline for completion of full implementation of requirements in connection with organization of the Department of Defense for management of special operations 

forces and special operations (sec. 926) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require full 

implementation of the reforms contained in section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328) not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. The 

committee notes that this section included a number of reforms designed to empower the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to act as the 

‘‘service secretary-like’’ civilian responsible for exercising ‘‘authority, direction and control of all special operations-peculiar administrative matters relating to the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces (SOF).’’ 

The committee further notes that section 922 established a new 

administrative chain of command to facilitate the exercise of these 

responsibilities that runs from Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) through the ASD SOLIC to the Secretary of Defense, thereby mirroring the relationship between the 

Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries. This reform was, 

in part, intended to address the fact that the ASD SOLIC’s organizational location within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) has resulted in the ASD SOLIC dedicating the preponderance of his time and resources to policy and 

operational issues at the expense of his ‘‘service secretary-like’’ responsibilities. The committee understands that the Department 

continues to consider options for implementing this administrative 

chain of command but reiterates its intent that the ASD SOLIC is 

252 

empowered to act independent of, but in coordination with, the 

USD(P) in matters related to the organization, training, and equipping of special operations forces. This administrative chain of command is not intended to impact the relationship between the ASD 

SOLIC and USD(P) on policy matters relating to the employment 

of special operations forces and related authorities. 

The committee is concerned that, despite passage of Public Law 

114–328 nearly 18 months ago, the implementation of the reforms 

contained in section 922 remain incomplete. According to a report 

required by section 1074 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense directed the development of recommendations for implementation of these reforms, but no substantive actions have been 

taken since. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, beginning on July 1, 2018, and continuing on the first day 

of every month thereafter until full implementation of the ASD 

SOLIC reforms, to provide the congressional defense committees 

with monthly progress reports on specific actions taken to institutionalize the ASD SOLIC’s role in: 

(1) SOF programs and requirements, including SOCOM’s Strategic Planning Process; the Global Force Management process; the 

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System; the military construction decision process; and the process for development 

of campaign and posture plans; 

(2) SOF acquisition, technology, and logistics enterprise, including acquisition program management; science and technology program management; innovation; procurement; Services program 

management; logistics; materiel readiness; depot management; 

agile/specialized acquisition management; and supporting activities; 

(3) The Department of Defense’s budgeting processes for special 

operations; 

(4) SOF personnel and readiness, including management of military and civilian personnel; readiness reporting; SOF-peculiar initiatives (e.g., training education, warrior care); awards and decorations; and casualty notifications; 

(5) SOF special access programs, including programming and 

budgeting, acquisition, security, and oversight; and 

(6) Other matters including, but not limited to, legislative affairs, 

public affairs, general counsel, and inspector general-type functions. 

The committee further directs that the required reports provide 

benchmarks for achieving full implementation of the ASD SOLIC 

reforms in each of the six areas described above and an assessment 

of when each benchmark will be achieved. Elsewhere in this Act, 

the committee recommends a provision related to civilian staffing 

of the ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special Operations. 

253 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of the 

Department of Defense Generally 

Limitation on availability of funds for major headquarters 

activities of the Department of Defense (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 2 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the amount of funds 

available for major headquarters activities (MHA) within the Department of Defense (DOD). Beginning in fiscal year 2020, the provision would prohibit the DOD from spending more than 1.6 percent of the 10-year average of the DOD budget on MHA. 

Of the funds authorized to be spent on MHA, no more than 0.4 

percent of the Department’s 10-year budget average shall be available for Office of the Secretary of Defense MHA entities. Additionally, within the total funds available for MHA, 1 percent of the 10- 

year average of each military department budget shall be available 

for the MHA requirements of each military department concerned. 

Any remaining funds available for MHA requirements may be 

distributed to any MHA organization within the Department of Defense, with the exception of MHA organizations within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. Combatant command MHA requirements will be funded out of these remaining resources. 

The committee notes that this provision aligns the DOD with private sector best management practices. Managing overhead and 

headquarters through realistic budgetary percentage targets allows 

for appropriate flexibility and also ensures a predictable distribution of resources to various MHA entities. The budget percentage 

limitations included in this provision were deliberately selected to 

achieve two primary objectives. First, these percentages achieve 

the desired MHA reductions originally installed by section 346 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). Second, the selected percentages are realistic targets based on historical MHA spending levels. A 10-year average 

of budget levels was utilized to insulate the Department from rapid 

year-to-year swings in funding. 

Responsibility for policy on civilian casualty matters (sec. 

932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to designate a senior civilian 

official of the Department of Defense at the level of Assistant Secretary of Defense or above to develop, coordinate, and oversee compliance with the policy of the Department relating to civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations. Additionally, the 

provision would require the senior civilian official so designated to 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report that describes the policies developed under this section and the efforts of 

the Department to implement those policies. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to report on the number of denials or revVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
254 

ocations of a security clearance that occurred separately from a 

periodic reinvestigation. The provision also includes a sense of Congress that adjudication decisions from personnel security investigations should be communicated in a transparent manner to ensure 

public trust. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of National Intelligence to establish within 90 days of enactment of this Act a program for mission-critical positions, fulfilled by either government or contract employees, to complete the 

processing of an application for a clearance within a designated 

timeline. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Director of National Intelligence to establish within 90 days of enactment of this Act a program to share information, to include derogatory and suitability information, with appropriate safeguards for 

privacy, between and among government agencies and industry 

partners regarding individuals applying for and in positions of 

trust. 

Report on clearance in person concept (sec. 936) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Director of National Intelligence to provide, within 90 days of enactment 

of this Act, a report on the requirements, feasibility, and advisability of implementing a ‘‘clearance in person’’ concept for maintaining access to classified information. 

Strategic Defense Fellows Program (sec. 937) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish, within 1 year of the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Strategic Defense Fellows Program within the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide leadership development and the commencement of a career track toward senior leadership in the Department. The provision would prescribe eligibility, 

application, selection, assignment, term, and certain pay and benefit requirements for prospective fellows. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary to ensure fellows receive opportunities and support appropriate for commencement of a career track 

within the DOD that could lead to a future position of senior leadership within the Department. 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTN). The amount authorized to be appropriated 

for OMDW includes the following changes from the budget request. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

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

255 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Analysis of Department of Defense business management 

and operations datasets to promote savings and efficiencies (sec. 941) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Chief Management Officer to develop a policy on the analysis of 

Department of Defense datasets on business management and operations and to pilot three to five of these previously non-public 

datasets under that policy. These datasets would come from business operations-related systems. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

be seeking to effectively leverage analytic methods or techniques 

outside of the Federal Government in order to face its most pressing challenges. In discharging this project, the Secretary of Defense 

should exercise appropriate caution in excising any personal information or sensitive security information from public exposure. 

Research and development to advance capabilities of the 

Department of Defense in data integration and advanced analytics in connection with personnel security 

(sec. 942) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to conduct research and 

development efforts on continuous evaluation and personnel security. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense 

(DOD), through the Defense Security Service, has been researching 

continuous evaluation technologies and approaches for some time. 

Though DOD is exploiting some commercial technologies, these efforts have largely built upon government developed tools from entities like the Defense Manpower Data Center and Defense Personnel and Security Research Center. These efforts have occurred 

under significant time pressure given the impending transfer of responsibilities for personnel security investigations from the National Background Investigation Bureau to DOD and have been 

rightly focused on creating minimally viable products that can 

quickly scale. 

However, the committee urges DOD to direct some limited additional research and development resources toward this problem in 

order to leverage and incorporate leading-edge technologies that 

may exist only in the commercial sector. The committee appreciates 

the urgency surrounding this effort, but believes in the critical importance of going beyond a simple evolution of existing technology 

to instead seek a ‘‘step change’’ in capability that will radically improve the personnel security process. Access to these leading edge 

capabilities will be enhanced through collaboration with the Defense Digital Service and the Defense Innovation Board. The Director of National Intelligence, in the role of Security Executive Agent, 

should be involved in these efforts and made aware of changes to 

continuous evaluation or personnel security procedures proposed by 

DOD. 

256 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Defense personnel security resourcing plans 

and needs 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Chief Management Officer, to submit a report on the resource and workforce requirements necessary 

for implementing section 925 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The committee seeks 

to understand, in particular, the investigative capacity needs that 

will be required to complete this mission. Accurate and reliable estimates of the current contract and government capabilities that 

can be tapped to execute these missions will become even more 

critical after these changes. The committee is concerned that the 

personnel security community has long lacked accurate estimates 

of capacity which has led to increased backlogs. 

Moreover, as the Department ramps up its efforts in continuous 

evaluation and insider threat capabilities, the workforce needs and 

skills required to complete background investigations will shift. 

This shift may require increased capacity from functions outside of 

traditional security, like human resources. Therefore, the report 

should also include a proposal for the Department of Defense’s path 

forward in order to fully tap both government and industry capacity given advances in technology. The committee further directs the 

Department to include within this report information on the use of 

1099s for federal background investigations. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence submit this report to the relevant congressional defense 

committees and intelligence committees not more than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act. 

Department of Defense security clearance responsibilities 

The committee understands that the administration has decided 

to transfer to the Department of Defense (DOD) the remaining responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management’s National 

Background Investigations Bureau for conducting background investigations for non-DOD Federal employees. Independent of this 

decision, the committee remains concerned by the backlog in background investigations and re-investigations which creates security 

risks for the government, harms the government’s ability to recruit 

high-quality personnel, and wastes resources annually as employees are sidelined waiting for clearances. At the same time, the committee fully recognizes the necessity for a consistent, reliable, judicious, and thorough investigation and adjudication process. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

present to the appropriate committees a plan for assuming all 

background investigation responsibilities for the federal government no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The 

plan should explain how DOD will manage the transition while 

modernizing the investigation process and reducing the backlog. 

The plan should include an estimate of the time and resources required to eliminate the backlog and any additional authorities 

needed in order to carry out this mission. 

257 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic 

The committee notes the strategic importance of the Arctic continues to increase as the United States and other countries recognize the military significance of the Arctic’s sea lanes, choke points, 

and its potential for power projection into multiple regions. The 

committee also recognizes that the Department of Defense’s mission requirements in the Arctic are expected to grow, as increases 

in human and maritime activity bring heightened risk of maritime 

accidents, oil spills, illegal fishing, and harvesting of other natural 

resources in the exclusive economic zones of the United States and 

other potential threats and challenges to United States sovereignty. 

The committee notes that the Russian Federation has aggressively focused on the development of Arctic capabilities and has 

made significant investments in military infrastructure in the Arctic. The committee further notes that Secretary of Defense James 

Mattis has stated, ‘‘The Arctic is key strategic terrain. . . Russia 

is taking aggressive steps to increase its presence there. . . I will 

prioritize the development of an integrated strategy for the Arctic. 

I believe that our interests and the security of the Arctic would 

benefit from increasing the focus of the Department of Defense on 

this region.’’ 

The committee remains concerned that the current Department 

of Defense jurisdiction over the Arctic region presents operational 

seams between three geographic combatant commands and two 

functional combatant commands: U.S. Northern Command, U.S. 

European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Transportation Command, with U.S. European 

Command holding the primary responsibility for the major adversary in the region, U.S. Pacific Command retaining operational 

control of U.S. forces located in Alaska, and U.S. Northern Command assigned as the Department’s advocate for Arctic capabilities. 

Exacerbating the operational seam is the fact that, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there is no single person directly 

responsible for the coordination of Arctic security issues. The committee is concerned that no one combatant command nor one single 

entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense is tasked with 

operationalizing the Department of Defense’s 2016 Arctic Strategy. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to designate a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with primary responsibilities for the Arctic Region, in order to coordinate the formation of Arctic defense policy with relevant Department of Defense entities. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the 

Arctic Region would have the responsibilities of: advocating for 

United States national security interests in the Arctic region; mitigating operational seams between relevant geographic and functional combatant commands in order to improve unity of effort; 

identifying any capability and resource gaps in the Arctic region 

and formulating plans to mitigate these gaps; identifying the actions by foreign nations that increase the threat to United States 

interests in the Arctic region; formulating plans to mitigate these 

actions; and planning military-to-military cooperation with partner 

nations that have mutual security interests in the Arctic region. 

Not later than December 1, 2018, the committee directs the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
258 

retary to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

on how the Department plans to delegate and address these responsibilities. 

(259) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.5 billion of fiscal year 2019 

funds authorized in division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. 

Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations 

would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Inclusion of funds for Air Force pass-through items in Defense-wide budget for the Department of Defense (sec. 

1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer Air Force pass-through budget 

items to the defense-wide budget for fiscal year 2020 and future 

budget requests. 

Each year, a significant portion of the Air Force budget contains 

funds that are passed on to, and managed by, other organizations 

with in the Department of Defense. This portion of the budget, 

called ‘‘pass-through,’’ cannot be altered or managed by the Air 

Force. It resides within the Air Force budget for the purposes of the 

President’s budget request and apportionment, but is then transferred out of the Service’s control. In fiscal year 2018, the Air Force 

pass-through budget amounted to approximately $22.0 billion, or 

just less than half of the total Air Force procurement budget. The 

committee believes that the current Air Force pass-through budgeting process provides a misleading picture of the Air Force’s actual 

investment budget. 

Report on shift in requests for funds for Department of Defense activities from funds for overseas contingency operations to funds through the base budget (sec. 1003) 

The Department of Defense and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) have both stated their intentions to shift funding in 

the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts to base funding starting in fiscal year 2020. According to the OMB, the Department will be shifting $53.0 billion of the $73.0 billion of OCO funding to base in fiscal year 2020. The shift of OCO to base funding 

is an attempt by the Department and the OMB to move enduring 

costs associated with overseas contingencies back to the base budget. The committee supports a shift of OCO to base if there is a comparable increase in the overall base topline and if it is done in a 

responsible manner that does not put at risk future funding for key 

260 

programs, such as preferred munitions or the European Deterrence 

Initiative. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision requiring the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to submit a report that 

outlines the changes to the OMB OCO criteria and lists the exact 

figure amounts by project or activity that are shifted from OCO to 

base funding for the fiscal year 2020 budget request. 

Ranking of auditability of financial statements of the organizations and elements of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1004) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reinstate a 

reporting requirement that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) rank the military departments, Defense Agencies, and Field 

Activities in terms of audit progress. 

Transparency of accounting firms used to support Department of Defense audit (sec. 1005) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to mandate that any firm under contract or 

consideration to support the Department of Defense’s (DOD) full financial statement audit provide a statement documenting any relevant disciplinary proceedings currently in progress involving that 

firm. 

The committee notes that in order to complete the first full financial statement audit of DOD, the Department will be required to 

contract with accounting firms. However, the committee urges the 

Department to create policies on disclosure of any relevant proceedings that such firms are involved in, in order to ensure that 

the firms are best qualified and positioned to provide sound audit 

advice. The committee urges the Department to consider such results and to look for an unqualified peer review report when selecting a partner, in order to ensure effective counsel on quality control 

processes and audits. 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the Naval 

Vessel Register and other fleet inventory measures (sec. 

1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

date of listing of vessels as battle force ships in the Naval Vessel 

Register and other fleet inventory measures. 

Annual reports on examination of Navy vessels (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

annual unclassified report from the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey that would provide an unclassified summary 

of inspection results for each fiscal year, including a narrative summary, vessels inspected, and material readiness trends. 

261 

Limitation on duration of homeporting of certain vessels in 

foreign locations (sec. 1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

overseas homeport duration of certain ship classes to not more 

than 10 consecutive years. 

The committee notes the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) published a report on May 29, 2015, titled ‘‘Sustainable Plan 

and Comprehensive Assessment Needed to Mitigate Long-Term 

Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas Homeports’’ (GAO–15–329), 

which concluded that ‘‘overseas-homeported ships have had lower 

material condition since 2012 and experienced a worsening trend 

in overall ship readiness when compared to U.S.-homeported ships’’ 

and ‘‘because the Navy expects [overseas-homeported] ships to be 

operationally available for the maximum amount of time, their intermediate and depot-level maintenance is instead executed 

through more frequent, shorter maintenance periods, or deferred 

until after the ship returns to a U.S. homeport, according to Navy 

officials.’’ 

The committee further notes this GAO report states, ‘‘According 

to Navy officials, forward-deployed ships are typically homeported 

overseas for a period of 7 to 10 years before being replaced with 

a ship of the same class from the United States’’ and that the Chief 

of Naval Operations testified on January 18, 2018 before the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives that his 

goal was overseas homeporting of not more than 8 years for a ship. 

The committee understands the USS Fitzgerald and USS John 

S. McCain were initially homeported in Yokosuka, Japan in 2004 

(13 years ago) and 1997 (20 years ago), respectively. The committee 

further understands other ships have exceeded the Navy’s overseas 

homeporting goals, including the USS Curtis Wilber, which has 

been homeported in Yokosuka since 1996 (21 years). 

Specific authorization requirement for nuclear refueling of 

aircraft carriers (sec. 1014) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a specific authorization by statute before funds may be obligated or expended for the procurement of a naval nuclear reactor power unit 

or associated reactor components for the nuclear refueling of an 

aircraft carrier. 

The committee notes that the procurement lead time for some 

nuclear components required to conduct a nuclear refueling precedes the authorization for the associated aircraft carrier refueling 

by several years. 

Accordingly, in order to maintain appropriate oversight of program execution, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should obtain a specific authorization for such nuclear components. 

Dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft 

carriers (sec. 1015) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report be submitted to the congressional defense committees prior to 

awarding a contract for dismantlement and disposal of a nuclearpowered aircraft carrier or providing funding to a naval shipyard 

262 

for dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. 

The provision would also require additional information be provided on the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with the materials submitted to the Congress by the 

Secretary of Defense in support of the budget of the President for 

each fiscal year. 

The committee notes that in response to the Senate report accompanying S. 1519 (S. Rept. 115–125) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has briefed the committee 

on the Navy’s considerations for the dismantlement and disposal of 

the ex-USS Enterprise nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. 

The committee further notes GAO’s preliminary analysis indicates that the anticipated cost and schedule for dismantlement and 

disposal of the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are comparable to large Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition programs, which have structured oversight to support transparency 

and accountability; however, ship dismantlement and disposal has 

no specific reporting requirements under DOD or Navy policy. 

The committee believes information provided on dismantlement 

and disposal as part of annual budget requests currently lacks sufficient detail to inform oversight of ship-specific activities. As the 

Navy has yet to dismantle and dispose of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the committee further believes establishing formal requirements will set a precedent to enable sufficient oversight for 

these large-scale dismantlement and disposal efforts. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the number 

of used vessels, from two to seven, that the Secretary of Defense 

is authorized to purchase as part of a program to recapitalize the 

surge sealift capability in the Ready Reserve Force component of 

the National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Military Sealift Command’s surge fleet. This proposal would also limit the time period 

during which such vessels could be purchased to fiscal years 2019 

through 2030. 

Based on the Navy’s fiscal year 2019 30-year shipbuilding plan, 

the committee understands that meeting the full sealift recapitalization requirement would entail procuring 26 used vessels through 

fiscal year 2031. The committee notes that authority to procure 

seven used vessels would be sufficient to meet sealift recapitalization requirements through fiscal year 2025. In order to maintain 

oversight of this program while allowing the Department to plan 

for the entire future years defense program, the committee believes 

that authority to procure such vessels should not exceed seven 

years. 

Limitation on use of funds for retirement of hospital ships 

(sec. 1017) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the use 

of funds for the purpose of retiring or preparing to retire a hospital 

ship. 

263 

The committee notes the Navy plans to decommission the USNS 

Comfort hospital ship in fiscal year 2021, which would decrease the 

Navy’s hospital ship capacity by 50 percent, without a plan programmed in the future years defense program to replace the associated medical capability and capacity. 

Subtitle C—Counterterrorism 

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

1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to transfer or release individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

the United States. 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to construct or 

modify facilities in the United States to house detainees 

transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to construct or modify facilities in the 

United States to house detainees transferred from United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

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

1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to transfer or release individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

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 2019, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to the 

Department of Defense to close or abandon United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control of Guantanamo Bay to 

the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a material modification to 

the Treaty between the United States of America and Cuba signed 

at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934, that constructively closes 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay. 

264 

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United 

States temporarily for emergency or critical medical 

treatment (sec. 1025) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for necessary 

medical treatment that is not available at Guantanamo. 

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Strategic guidance documents within the Department of Defense (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 113(g) of title 10, United States Code, to identify and clarify 

three strategic guidance documents that support and implement 

the National Defense Strategy, as well as describing the elements 

to be included in each document. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit these strategic documents to the congressional defense committees. 

In 2016, the committee acted to revitalize the Department of Defense’s strategy development process. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) replaced 

the Quadrennial Defense Review with a framework for a more coherent and comprehensive National Defense Strategy. The committee applauds the Secretary of Defense’s efforts in crafting the 

National Defense Strategy. 

The committee recognizes that the ultimate success of the National Defense Strategy will depend on how it is implemented by 

strong civilian leadership in the Department of Defense, and the 

rigorous oversight of the Congress. In order to ensure that the congressional defense committees have the necessary information to 

perform necessary oversight of the Department of Defense’s implementation of the National Defense Strategy, the provision would 

require the Secretary of Defense to submit, to the congressional defense committees, the three strategic guidance documents which 

contain the policy direction for executing the strategy: the Defense 

Planning Guidance (DPG), the Contingency Planning Guidance 

(CPG)/Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF), and the 

Global Defense Posture Report. 

The DPG establishes goals, priorities, and objectives, including 

fiscal constraints, to direct the preparation and review of the program and budget recommendations of all elements of the Department. The CPG/GEF provides policy guidance on the preparation 

and review of contingency and campaign plans, which drive requirements for the Department’s program and budget requests. 

The Global Defense Posture Report includes a description of U.S. 

forces, capabilities, and equipment assigned and allocated outside 

of the United States required to execute the strategy. 

These strategic guidance documents set forth the Secretary of 

Defense’s policy guidance as to what the Department should buy 

for the joint force, how the joint force is to be used, and where the 

joint force is to be postured around the world in order to execute 

the National Defense Strategy. These are fundamental issues subVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
265 

ject to the oversight of the congressional defense committees. 

Therefore, the committee believes it is both necessary and appropriate that the Secretary of Defense should submit these documents to the congressional defense committees. 

Guidance on the electronic warfare mission area and joint 

electromagnetic spectrum operations (sec. 1032) 

The committee remains concerned that electronic warfare is a 

warfighting area where our peer adversaries, such as China and 

Russia, are establishing significant asymmetric advantages. The 

Defense Science Board identified numerous vulnerabilities in the 

May 2015 Electronic Warfare assessment, and the Department attempted to address these in the June 2017 Department of Defense 

Electronic Warfare Strategy. However the committee assesses that 

the Department continues to approach the electronic warfare mission area and joint electromagnetic spectrum operations in an insufficient and uncoordinated manner that risks the joint force lagging further behind our peer competitor efforts. 

The provision would establish a senior designated official and an 

associated cross functional team to update the June 2017 Department of Defense Electronic Warfare strategy and submit it, along 

with a road map of the referenced requirements and plans, not 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committees. The road map would include: the efforts 

undertaken in support of the 2017 DOD Electronic Warfare strategy and any updates or changes to the strategy since its issuance; 

a review of the vulnerabilities identified in the May 2015 Electronic 

Warfare assessment; an assessment of the capability of the joint 

force to conduct joint electromagnetic spectrum operations against 

peer competitors; and a description of actions, performance metrics, 

and projected timelines for achieving key capabilities for electronic 

warfare and joint electromagnetic spectrum operations. The road 

map would also include an analysis of any personnel, resourcing, 

capability, authority, or other gaps to be addressed in order to ensure effective implementation of the strategy across all relevant 

elements of the Department. 

Additionally, in consultation with the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the cross functional team would provide an assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of Russia and China, 

a review of U.S. vulnerabilities with respect to electronic systems, 

and a study of the manner in which Russia and China develop electronic warfare doctrine, with order of battle across multiple domains, and long-term research trends of each country in connection 

with such warfare. 

The senior designated official would also be required to submit 

to the congressional defense committees an update describing the 

status of the efforts of the Department in accomplishing the tasks 

specified in the electronic warfare strategy and the road map every 

90 days after the initial report is released. 

266 

Limitation on use of funds for United States Special Operations Command Global Messaging and Counter-Messaging platform (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for 

United States Special Operations Command’s (SOCOM) global messaging and counter-messaging (GMCM) platform until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees 

a report containing detailed information relating to the platform 

and SOCOM’s military information support enterprise. The committee notes that the budget request includes $18.0 mil- lion in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, and $7.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for SOCOM’s GMCM platform. 

The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense has identified SOCOM as the Department of Defense’s (DOD) proponent for 

military information support operations (MISO) and directed the 

establishment of a centralized DOD MISO GMCM platform at 

SOCOM. Given SOCOM’s transregional approach to matters within 

its purview, the committee believes the command is positioned to 

play an important role in supporting the GMCM activities of the 

other combatant commands by enabling facilities and contracting 

efficiencies, the capture and adoption of best practices, and messaging consistency across geographic boundaries. However, the 

budget request lacks sufficient detail on the plan for establishment 

of the GMCM capability, including the identification of budget, infrastructure and equipment requirements for the platform to reach 

full operational capability as well as an identification of long-term 

sustainment costs. Additionally, the committee requires greater understanding of how GMCM planning and activities will be de-conflicted and, where possible, integrated with the planning and activities of the combatant commands as well as other relevant departments and agencies of the United States Government, including the Department of State’s Global Engagement Center. 

Lastly, the committee is concerned that the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and 

facilities applicable to military information support capabilities has 

not kept pace with emerging challenges and opportunities in the 

information environment. Specifically, the committee believes the 

MISO enterprise remains too focused on tactical activities using 

traditional media and has not evolved to adequately counter adversary messaging through social media and other modern forms of 

communication. The committee notes that the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) ‘‘Web Ops’’ capability was established to 

counter online propaganda of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 

and is the predecessor to the proposed SOCOM GMCM platform. 

Despite the existence of a military information support military occupational specialty for decades, the MISO enterprise played only 

a minimal, supporting role in the activities of the CENTCOM Web 

Ops platform. The committee believes this situation is symptomatic 

of broader deficiencies in the MISO enterprise. Therefore, the recommended provision requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

a review of the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities applicable to military 

information support capabilities with a goal of improving the capaVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
267 

bilities of the MISO enterprise to more effectively operate in the information environment against both state and non-state actors. 

Sense of Congress on the basing of KC–46A aircraft outside 

the continental United States (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress regarding the basing of KC–46A tanker aircraft 

outside of the continental United States. 

Relinquishment of legislative jurisdiction of criminal offenses committed by juveniles on military installations 

(sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that, in the case of any 

military installation or portion of a military installation of which 

exclusive legislative jurisdiction of criminal offenses committed by 

juveniles is retained by the United States as of the date of the enactment of this Act, would require the relevant service secretary to 

seek to relinquish to the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession concerned legislative jurisdiction of such offenses such that 

the United States and the State, Commonwealth, territory, or possession would have concurrent legislative jurisdiction of such offenses. 

Policy on response to juvenile-on-juvenile abuse committed 

on military installations (sec. 1036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a policy, applicable across the 

military installations of the Department of Defense, on the response of the Department to allegations of juvenile-on-juvenile 

abuse on military installations. 

Subtitle E—Studies and Reports 

Report on highest-priority roles and missions of the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees concerning a re-evaluation of the highest priority 

missions for the Department of Defense, the roles of the Joint 

Force in the performance of such missions, and the capability requirements which stem from them. The required report, due February 2019, includes a series of questions further inquiring about 

the specific impacts of the National Defense Strategy on the Department of Defense. 

Over the years, the committee has received briefings and testimony describing the degrading state of U.S. military capabilities 

vis-a`-vis peer adversaries. The reasons for this are numerous: unstable budgets, sustained high operational tempo, as well as increased investments in military capabilities of adversaries. The 

committee has been concerned about the state of U.S. overmatch 

for several years and believes that changing this trend is a high 

priority for the Department. 

For this reason, the committee believes that the National Defense Strategy correctly characterizes the leading strategic chalVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
268 

lenge facing the United States as the reemergence of great power 

competition. Furthermore, the NDS prioritizes the development of 

a more lethal joint force to deter, and if necessary, defeat aggression by peer-adversaries. The committee is supportive of efforts by 

the Department, to implement the NDS. However, as the Commission on the National Defense Strategy recommends, the Department must conduct further analytical work to identify the specifics 

of how the NDS will be implemented. 

The reporting requirement poses ten overarching questions that 

the committee believes are natural issues that arise from the 

change in priorities identified in the NDS. Those questions include 

such things as an update to the roles and missions of the military 

services, how the NDS impacts the military’s end strength requirements, how the military will be conducting the counterterrorism 

mission, and how capability requirements and investments 

throughout the Joint Force are impacted by focusing on peer-adversaries and operating in a contested environment. These questions 

are key for the committee to better understand the implications of 

the NDS, and better facilitates the committee to perform oversight 

over budgetary authorizations. 

As related to this reporting requirement, the committee recommends several provisions that would limit the obligation and expenditure of authorized funding for various programs, until this reporting requirement is met. 

Annual reports by the Armed Forces on Out-Year Unconstrained Total Munitions Requirements and Out-Year inventory numbers (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title 

10 to require the Services provide an annual report to the Congress 

detailing the Armed Forces’ annual total munitions requirements 

and out-year munitions inventory numbers. The details of the report would be based on the Department of Defense’s munitions requirements process. 

Comprehensive review of operational and administrative 

chains-of-command and functions of the Department of 

the Navy (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a comprehensive review of the 

operational and administrative chains-of-command and functions in 

the Department of the Navy. 

Military aviation readiness review in support of the National Defense Strategy (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a joint review of military aviation 

and deliver an accompanying report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later 

than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. 

269 

Report on capabilities and capacities of Armored Brigade 

Combat Teams (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 

capabilities and capacity of Armored Brigades Combat Teams 

(ABCT) no later than 60 days after the enactment of this bill into 

law. 

The committee notes that the Army has taken action to improve 

readiness over the last several years, but the focus has been primarily on infantry brigade combat teams (IBCT). In light of requirements in the National Defense Strategy (NDS), the committee 

would like to know the total number of ABCTs required to support 

the NDS and how the Army will equip and field future ABCTs. 

Furthermore, if current levels of mechanized infantry are insufficient to maintain the combined arms nature of the ABCTs, the 

committee would like to understand how the Army will address the 

need for additional mechanized infantry companies. In addition, 

the committee would like to understand how the Army is improving battalion and brigade-level combined arms live-fire exercises 

both at home station and at the Combat Training Centers. The 

committee would like to know what training is being conducted for 

ABCTs in combined arms for air defense and counter unmanned 

aerial vehicles missions with organic weapons and tactics. The Secretary should also report plans for improving personnel preparedness by the reduction of non-deployable soldiers, combat vehicle 

crew stability, and the material readiness of key combat systems. 

The committee notes that several key combat systems, such as 

Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Paladin howitzers, and 

M88 recovery vehicles, have unacceptably high non-mission capable 

rates due to the lack of repair parts and number of qualified mechanics. The Secretary is encouraged to provide a status update on 

the mission capable rates of these key combat systems and explain 

the Army’s plan to repair these deficiencies. Finally, the report 

should outline plans to modernize ABCTs to fill capability gaps, improve key weapon systems and ensure effective, suitable and survivable mobile command, control and communications. 

Improvement of annual report on civilian casualties in connection with United States military operations (sec. 

1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) to clarify annual reporting requirements 

on civilian casualties in connection with United States military operations. 

Report on Department of Defense participation in Export 

Administration Regulations license application review 

process (sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the participation by the Department of Defense in the process for reviewing applications for 

270 

export licenses under the Export Administration Regulations as a 

reviewing agency under Executive Order 12981. The provision 

would require that the report be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act and every 180 days thereafter until the date that is 3 

years after such date of enactment. 

Automatic sunset for future statutory reporting requirements (sec. 1048) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

automatic sunset of three years for future statutory reporting requirements of indefinite duration. The committee notes that excess 

reporting requirements impose costs on the Department of Defense 

that compound over time and three years would provide adequate 

time to determine the necessity of a reporting requirement and to 

request an extension for those requirements that continue to serve 

an important purpose to the committee’s oversight role. 

Repeal of certain Department of Defense reporting requirements that otherwise terminate as of December 31, 2021 

(sec. 1049) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal certain 

Department of Defense reporting requirements that are otherwise 

set to terminate as of December 31, 2021. The committee notes 

that the included reports have served their oversight purpose and 

will be repealed so as to reduce the burden placed on the Department of Defense by compounding reporting requirements, which 

drive up costs and distract offices from their primary missions. 

Report on potential improvements to certain military educational institutions of the Department of Defense (sec. 

1050) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than December 1, 2019, reviewing educational institutions of 

the Department of Defense. The review would be conducted by an 

outside organization with expertise in analyzing matters in connection with higher education. 

Recruiting costs of the Armed Forces (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the costs of recruiting for the Armed Forces. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup 

(sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of State for 

the Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup in Vietnam. Since the normalization 

of U.S.-Vietnam relations in 1995, the United States and Vietnam 

271 

have made remarkable progress in transcending the legacy of war 

and building a strategic partnership to defend shared interests and 

common values. The committee recognizes that the Bien Hoa dioxin 

cleanup—carried out with financial contributions from the Government of Vietnam, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and other international partners—would be another significant milestone in the progress of U.S.-Vietnam relations and would 

support the continued advancement of a strategic partnership rooted in a shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region that 

is peaceful, stable, and prosperous. 

Improvement of database on emergency response capabilities (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1406 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364) to require the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to establish the database required under that section not 

later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. Furthermore, the provision would require the database to include information on the emergency response capabilities of the National 

Guard of each U.S. Territory and information on the cyber capabilities of National Guard and Reserve units identified by the DOD as 

critical for response to domestic natural or man-made disasters. Finally, the provision would clarify that the Department may use an 

existing database or system to fulfill the requirement to establish 

a database under certain circumstances. 

Acceptance and distribution by Department of Defense of 

assistance from certain nonprofit entities in support of 

missions of deployed United States personnel around 

the world (sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate regarding collaboration with and the provision 

of logistical support to covered non-Federal entities, including Spirit of America, to advance the military missions of the Armed 

Forces. 

The provision would also authorize the Department of Defense, 

consistent with applicable guidance, to accept from any covered 

non-Federal entity privately funded humanitarian, economic, and 

other nonlethal assistance; and respond to requests from covered 

non-Federal entities for the identification of the needs of local populations abroad for assistance, and coordinate with such entities in 

the provision and distribution of such assistance. 

United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation 

and overflight (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that it 

is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever international law allows. The provision would also describe the steps 

the Secretary of Defense should take in furtherance of that policy. 

272 

Prohibition of funds for Chinese language instruction provided by a Confucius Institute (sec. 1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made 

available for fiscal year 2019 under this Act to be obligated or expended for Chinese language instruction provided by a Confucius 

Institute. 

The provision would also prohibit funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019 

under this Act to be obligated or expended to support a Chinese 

language program at an institution of higher education that hosts 

a Confucius Institute. The provision would allow the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to waive this limitation if the Under Secretary provides a certification to the congressional defense committees that, among other elements, Confucius 

Institute employees and instructors will have no affiliation with the 

program, provide no instruction or support to the program, and 

have no authority or influence with regard to the curriculum and 

activities of the program. 

Items of Special Interest 

Audit materiality standards relating to valuation 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) on 

beginning its first department-wide financial audit. The committee 

views the audit as vital to the health of Department finances and 

business-related activities which directly impact our national security. In order to achieve maximum benefit from conducting an annual full financial audit, the Department must exercise continued 

transparency to this committee and to the American people. 

The committee understands that the Department is still developing materiality standards regarding property, plant, and equipment valuation for the department-wide audit. The committee also 

understands that judgments about materiality standards for valuation have been developed and used by other government entities 

and large private companies in the process of achieving an unqualified audit opinion. 

Materiality standards and thresholds are critical factors in the 

conduct and results of a full financial audit. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide an update on their assertions regarding materiality standards relating to valuation within 

the department-wide audit in order to promote necessary transparency and accountability by December 31, 2018. 

Business case analysis for the 168th Air Refueling Wing 

The committee notes that the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291) required the Secretary of the Air Force to 

conduct a business case analysis on the creation of an Active Duty 

association for the 168th Air Refueling Wing. However, the committee notes that since the prescribed analysis was completed in 

December 2016, two important developments have occurred that 

were not taken into account. First, consideration of the addition of 

two F–35A squadrons at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, in 2020, 

273 

and an examination of future shortfalls in air refueling requirements due to such additional aircraft. Second, consideration of the 

increased operations tempo of the 168th Air Refueling Wing due to 

increased mission requirements of the North American Aerospace 

Defense Command. The committee believes that consideration of 

these two factors could potentially have led to different conclusions 

in the 2016 analysis. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to update the 2016 business case analysis taking into consideration 

the aforementioned factors and brief the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives on its results 

no later than March 1, 2019. 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response 

Enterprise 

A robust Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) 

Response Enterprise is critical to our nation’s security. U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) plays an integral part of any domestic CBRN response, and the committee applauds the role the National Guard performs in such a response. The committee also 

notes the importance of coordinated combined training and operations between the Department of Defense (DOD) and civilian first 

responders and agencies, including the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

To further enhance this collaboration, the committee believes 

DOD and civilian agencies that sponsor first responder training 

should coordinate such training opportunities at the individual 

level. As NORTHCOM continues to execute unit-level and enterprise-wide training events, such as through exercises with major 

metropolitan cities, the Department should consider allowing state 

and local first responders to participate in CBRN response training 

programs provided by the individual military services, particularly 

those supported by Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) grants, such as those offered at the Army’s Maneuver Support Center of Excellence (MSCOE), on a space-available basis. 

This would better integrate NORTHCOM’s overall response to a 

CBRN event. The committee also believes that there are cost efficiencies and improved information-sharing and integration that 

could result from using existing DOD CBRN training facilities. 

Therefore, the committee directs DOD, in coordination with DHS, 

to develop a plan to expand individual training opportunities on a 

space-available basis for state and local first responders. This plan 

should examine and take into consideration: (1) Existing DOD programs that provide trained and certified service members to serve 

in the CBRN Response Enterprise (CRE) including standardized 

training products and facilities offered by the Army’s MSCOE and 

the Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School 

and their ability to provide courses to non-DOD students that comply with civilian standards and industry best practices; (2) Existing 

programs and training standards set by the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), and the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), a 

training component of FEMA; (3) Any additional or unmet CBRN 

training requirements that are needed by the National Guard, DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
274 

partment of Homeland Security, other federal agencies, and state 

and local first responders that can currently be provided by the Department of Defense and military services to better integrate civilian CBRN training; and (4) Any other factors the Secretary deems 

appropriate. The Department should submit such a plan to the 

committee no later than March 1, 2019. 

Comptroller General report on monitoring ongoing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community 

The committee continues to follow the retention and quality of 

life of pilots and sensor operators in the remotely piloted aircraft 

(RPA) community. In April 2018, the Air Force provided a report 

on the RPA Culture and Process Improvement Plan (CPIP), pursuant to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91). The committee applauds the Air Force 

on the achievements detailed in the report, including reaching a 

10:1 crew-to-combat line ratio in December 2016. 

The committee notes that the CPIP report detailed ongoing 

shortfalls in quality of life services for the RPA community and 

contained little detail on the Air Force’s plans to address those 

shortfalls. The Air Force’s own studies have found poor quality of 

life have a major impact on morale and wellbeing in the RPA community, which is compounded by the effects of high demand and 

persistent shiftwork. 

The committee reiterates its commitment to receiving a detailed 

plan from the Air Force on expeditiously expanding access to housing, childcare, exchanges and commissaries, quality schools, and 

spouse employment opportunities at military installations where 

RPAs operate. The committee also notes that such a plan was required by Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA. 

The committee notes the Air Force’s plans to implement a combat-to-dwell policy within the next six years. While the committee 

supports that goal, it remains concerned about ongoing stress in 

the RPA community in the interim and the effect it will have on 

morale and retention. 

Therefore the committee directs Comptroller General of the 

United States to complete a report reviewing the Air Force’s plan 

to expand services at RPA bases, as well as the service’s plans to 

implement a combat-to-dwell policy. The report should address: (1) 

Challenges in expanding services at RPA bases and mitigation options; (2) How the service can incrementally reduce RPA operator 

stress and improve workload prior to achieving 1:0.5 combat-todwell; (3) How to balance production of additional sorties with attendant staffing requirements to support training; and (4) How to 

achieve retention goals to support the timeline for increasing the 

combat-to-dwell time ratio. Preliminary observations shall be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by the end of March 2019. At that time, 

a final product due date will be determined. 

Comptroller General review of Federally Funded Research 

and Development Centers 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) maintains long-term strategic partnerships with Federally 

275 

Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and relies 

on their capabilities to quickly respond to the needs of the Department while offering independent and objective scientific and technical advice, and other research services. FFRDCs provide federal 

agencies with capabilities that cannot be effectively met by the federal government or the private sector alone. 

FFRDCs are often given unique access to government data, employees, and facilities to complete their research. According to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that regulates FFRDCs, 

these organizations must (1) Operate in the public interest with objectivity and independence; (2) Be free from organizational conflicts 

of interest; and (3) Fully disclose their activities to their sponsoring 

agency. 

The committee supports the Department in utilizing FFRDCs for 

high quality and independent research to fulfill Congressional mandates and to otherwise inform DOD decision making. In fiscal year 

2015, the Federal Government spent $128.6 billion on R&D. Of 

that amount, $11.1 billion went to FFRDCs. FFRDCs are a critical 

resource for decision makers in DOD and Congress. Due to the sensitive and extensive research conducted by FFRDCs, the committee 

encourages the Department to ensure that FFRDCs continue to 

maintain the neutrality and objectivity imperative to the completion of quality products without the pressures of predetermined 

outcomes. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of the Department’s use of FFRDCs over 

the past 5 years and to provide a report on this review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than January 31, 2019. The review shall 

include, at a minimum: (1) The amount each military department 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense spent on FFRDC research in Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017; (2) Identification of each 

research project conducted during those years; (3) FFRDC and Department policies intended to maintain the research independence 

of FFRDCs; (4) The number of FFRDC recommendations that have 

been implemented by DOD since Fiscal Year 2007; and (5) The 

Comptroller General’s view of the value provided to the Federal 

Government by FFRDCs and the ability of private sector companies 

to provide a similar research option at competitive prices. 

Department of Defense information operations 

The committee notes the importance of information superiority in 

peacetime competition and modern warfare. The committee concurs 

with the priority placed on information operations in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the necessity to drive 

effective communications to ‘‘expose adversary propaganda and 

disinformation.’’ The Department of Defense (DOD) further highlighted this objective in the National Defense Strategy (NDS). Defensively, the NDS prioritized interagency cooperation with the Department of State and other agencies ‘‘to address areas of economic, 

technological, and information vulnerabilities.’’ Offensively, the 

NDS called for tactical, operational, and strategic investments ‘‘to 

gain and exploit information’’ and to ‘‘deny competitors those same 

276 

advantages’’. The committee supports DOD’s broad vision for 

achieving and maintaining information superiority. 

Moreover, the committee notes that DOD actively produces content for information operations seeking to fulfill the NSS objective 

of exposing adversary propaganda and disinformation. Even so, the 

committee recognizes the technical and political difficulties inherent in transmitting such content into target markets. Maintaining 

information superiority during peacetime competition requires 

interagency cooperation to move beyond content production into 

dissemination in both permissive and contested information environments. In order to effectively operate in the information environment, DOD must continue to leverage the full spectrum of capabilities, ranging from existing telecommunication assets to emerging technologies in cyberspace. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to congressional defense committees not later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act identifying any capability gaps 

that would inhibit the ability of the Geographic Combatant Commanders to disseminate information content in support of the NSS 

and the NDS, to include content produced by other elements of the 

U.S. Government. 

Marine Mammal Program and Support to Civil Authorities 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy’s Marine 

Mammal Program has been successful in training marine mammals to perform countermeasures and mine detection to ensure 

port security. The committee urges those state and local authorities 

wishing to request assistance from this program for homeland security purposes do so through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense and Global Security. Such requests are made on 

a reimbursable basis and may not adversely affect military preparedness in accordance with section 2564 of title 10, United States 

Code, and sections 272–276 of title 10, United States Code. 

Navy mine countermeasures aboard vessels of opportunity 

The committee notes the Navy program-of-record includes 24 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine countermeasures (MCM) mission 

packages. The committee understands the Navy plans to use nine 

of these MCM mission packages on vessels of opportunity (VOOs). 

The committee recognizes that VOOs can provide additional MCM 

host platform capacity to meet warfighting capability requirements 

and account for MCM maintenance cycles. 

Therefore, not later than February 1, 2019, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the plan to field MCM mission packages on VOOs. The report shall 

include the following: (1) A description of VOOs approved or under 

consideration to serve as a MCM host platform; (2) The VOO shipboard systems and integration necessary to serve as a MCM host 

platform; (3) The MCM mission package systems planned to be employed from a VOO; (4) The test plan necessary to achieve operational effectiveness and suitability determinations for VOOs serving as MCM host platforms; and (5) The schedule and funding by 

277 

fiscal year necessary to achieve the full operational capability for 

VOOs serving as MCM host platforms. 

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life assessment 

The committee notes that the first Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, 

USS Nimitz (CVN–68) is planned to decommission in fiscal year 

2025 at its expected service life of 50 years of service. The committee further notes that the Navy has extended the service lives 

of many ship classes, including Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic 

missile submarines from 30 years to 42 years. Recognizing the policy of the United States to achieve a 355-ship Navy includes 12 aircraft carriers, the committee is interested in better understanding 

the technical and engineering feasibility of extending Nimitz-class 

aircraft carriers beyond the class’ 50-year planned service life. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than January 1, 2019, on the options to extend the service lives of 

Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. This report shall include each of the 

following: (1) The technical and engineering feasibility of extending 

the service life of each Nimitz-class aircraft carrier; (2) The duration of such service life extensions; (3) Notional cost and schedule 

estimates for Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life extensions; 

(4) Public or private shipyard availability to accomplish such service life extensions; and (5) An assessment by the Secretary on the 

merits of implementing such options. 

Overclassification of Department of Defense information 

The committee believes protecting national security information 

and demonstrating our commitment to transparency through the 

proper application of classification standards are equally important 

and compatible priorities. However, the committee is growing increasingly concerned by the Department of Defense’s recent tendency to restrict information that was previously unclassified and 

had been routinely available publicly. For example, in materials 

submitted in support of the services’ budget requests, similar information was marked by some services as ‘‘sensitive but unclassified’’ 

but left unmarked by other services. In addition, the committee has 

observed recent incidents limiting distribution of reports from the 

Comptroller General of the United States, among others. While the 

committee understands the need to protect operational security, 

unnecessarily restricting the ability of the committee to share information makes it difficult for the committee to perform its constitutional oversight responsibilities in a transparent manner. 

Moreover, restricting information limits the American taxpayers’ 

visibility into the Department’s use of its significant budgetary resources. 

The committee looks forward to working with the Department to 

prevent overzealous use of dissemination control and handling 

markings that could unnecessarily restrict information sharing. 

Doing so will enable the committee to be open and transparent 

about key information, to include reports of the Comptroller General and other audit organizations, that informs the committee’s 

deliberations and oversight activities. 

278 

Policy of the Department of Defense on contract terms to 

support achievement of full financial audits 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to jointly develop a report on how future Department of Defense (DOD) contracts will support the valuation of, and accounting 

for, inventory and related property, general property, plant, and 

equipment constructed or acquired in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The report must be submitted by 

March 1, 2019 to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives. 

The committee urges the DOD to recognize the complex changes 

in business processes, including contracting, that must occur to 

achieve an unqualified audit opinion. Currently, some DOD contracts do not consider the need for auditors to accurately value and 

account for associated property or to separately identify and track 

all capital and expense-type items. This report should outline a 

path forward for a common-sense policy that accounts for these 

business process needs without imposing undue additional bureaucracy or slowness on the organization. 

Report on training and readiness of Navy surface ships 

The committee notes the 2017 Navy Comprehensive Review and 

Strategic Readiness Review (SRR) of surface Navy incidents identified unit-level certification standards as an area of concern. For example, the SRR found, ‘‘The Navy’s readiness standards for training opportunities, certifications, maintenance availabilities, and 

manning quality and levels, have been thoughtfully established. 

However, the Navy allowed these standards to erode to the point 

that they are nearly ineffective, especially in the case of Forward 

Deployed Naval Forces in Japan.’’ 

Therefore, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary for the Navy shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the training and readiness of Navy surface ships. 

This report shall include the following: (1) A description of the 

tasks each Navy surface ship shall accomplish to achieve each required training certification; (2) A description of the manner in 

which the readiness of Navy surface ships will be measured and assessed in order to ensure that requirements for each training certification applicable to such ships are being met; (3) A description 

of the required frequency of recertifications of Navy surface ships 

with respect to each required training certification; (4) A description of waivers and associated mitigation measures allowable for 

each required training certification; and (5) Any other matters the 

Secretary deems appropriate. 

Review of Surface Warfare Officer initial training 

The committee understands the current Navy Surface Warfare 

Officer (SWO) candidate training curriculum is comprised of primarily classroom and simulator training methods. The committee 

believes SWO candidates lack sufficient at-sea training before reporting to their first ships. The committee is concerned that the 

lack of practical at-sea experience before reporting to their first 

279 

ships may result in SWOs having gaps in their foundational safety, 

seamanship, and navigation knowledge, skills, and experience. The 

committee has previously encouraged the Navy to utilize Navy 

Yard Patrol craft for SWO candidate training in the Senate report 

accompanying S. 2943 (S. Rept. 114–255) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). Additionally, the 2017 Comprehensive Review of Surface Force Incidents directed an evaluation of the use of YP craft in all officer accession programs, including the feasibility of expanding YP craft 

use. 

Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to review and determine the adequacy and appropriate balance of practical at-sea, 

virtual, classroom, and other training for SWO candidates, including accessions from the U.S. Naval Academy, Naval Reserve Officer 

Training Corps, and Officer Candidate School, and the extent to 

which such training provides the necessary foundational safety, 

seamanship, and navigation knowledge, skills, and experience. Not 

later than October 1, 2018, the Secretary shall provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General 

of the United States with the results of this review and any associated policy changes. 

Not later than 120 days after receiving the Secretary of the 

Navy’s report, the Comptroller General is directed to provide the 

congressional defense committees with a written review of the Secretary’s report, including matters in connection with the Secretary’s report and review that the Comptroller General considers 

appropriate. 

Strategic dispersal of capital ships 

The committee continues to affirm the judgment of the Chiefs of 

Naval Operations, first stated in the Senate report (S. Rept. 209– 

254) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), that the Atlantic Fleet should 

continue to be dispersed in two homeports. On January 14, 2009, 

the Navy issued a Record of Decision to establish a second Atlantic 

Fleet nuclear aircraft carrier homeport at Naval Station Mayport 

in order to strategically disperse some of the most expensive and 

essential assets of the U.S. Fleet. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review validated the Navy’s decision, stating ‘‘to mitigate the risk 

of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural disaster, the U.S. Navy 

will homeport an East Coast carrier in Mayport, Florida.’’ 

The committee remains concerned that, despite the validated 

need for dispersal of some the Navy’s most expensive assets along 

the East Coast, the Navy has continually deferred projects necessary to achieve this strategic imperative. The committee believes 

that the Navy must review and update analysis of the need for 

strategic dispersal of the Atlantic Fleet along the East Coast. Further, the committee believes that, should such a review revalidate 

the strategic imperative for further dispersal of these ships, the 

Navy must carry out implementation of plans to enable this dispersal. 

(281) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters 

Inapplicability of certification of executive qualifications by 

qualification review boards of Office of Personnel Management for initial appointments to Senior Executive 

Service positions in Department of Defense (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would temporarily 

exempt the Department of Defense from the requirement that Office of Personnel Management qualification review boards certify 

candidates for senior executive service positions within the Department. The provision would sunset 2-years after enactment. 

Direct hire authority for science and technology reinvention laboratories and Major Range and Test Facilities 

Base facilities for recent science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates of minority-serving institutions (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a direct-hire authority at Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories and Major Range and Test Facilities Base Facilities for graduates of minority-serving institutions with degrees in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering. 

Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation Unit Experimental of the Department of Defense 

in personnel management authority to attract experts in 

science and engineering (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

existing direct hiring authority codified in section 1599h of title 10, 

United States Code, to the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. 

Enhancement of flexible management authorities for 

Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

enhance existing direct hiring authorities at the Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) within the Department of 

Defense. These provisions would extend pilot programs from previous National Defense Authorization Acts based on the committee’s continuing desire to ensure that the Department of Defense 

is able to recruit and retain high quality technical talent in its laboratories. 

282 

Inclusion of Office of Secretary of Defense among components of the Department of Defense covered by direct 

hire authority for financial management experts (sec. 

1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the direct hire authority created in section 1110 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) for financial management experts to include the Office of Secretary of 

Defense. 

Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Joint 

Special Operations University (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to employ and develop compensation policies for 

civilian professors, instructors, and lecturers at the Joint Special 

Operations University. 

Subtitle B—Government-Wide Matters 

Alcohol testing of civil service mariners of the Military Sealift Command assigned to vessels (sec. 1121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 643 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the Navy to prescribe regulations establishing a program to conduct on-duty reasonable suspicion alcohol testing and post-accident 

alcohol testing of civil service mariners of the Military Sealift Command assigned to vessels. In addition, this provision would amend 

section 7479 of such title to permit release of alcohol testing results 

to the Coast Guard. 

Expedited hiring authority for college graduates and post 

secondary students (sec. 1122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

recruitment and hiring process to provide additional flexibility in 

hiring college graduates and students. This authority would allow 

Federal agencies to determine recruitment sources and processes 

for the solicitation of applications in order to compete for top talent. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management would 

have the authority to cap the number of hires made under this authority. 

Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay authorized for civilian employees (sec. 1123) 

The committee recommends a proposal that would amend sections 3523 and 9902 of title 5, United States Code, to increase the 

maximum amount of separation pay authorized for Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) from the current ceiling of $25,000 to 

$40,000, and includes an annual adjustment in accordance with the 

Consumer Price Index. The maximum payable amount has not 

been adjusted since VSIP was first authorized by the Chief Human 

Capital Officers Act of 2002 (title XIII of Public Law 107–296). 

283 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on 

official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by one 

year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal agency to 

provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those 

provided to members of the Foreign Service to an agency’s civilian 

employees on official duty in a combat zone. 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

Federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as most recently 

amended by section 1137 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), to extend through 2019 

the authority of heads of executive agencies to waive limitation on 

the aggregate of basic and premium pay of employees who perform 

work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of 

the commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM, but has been moved to an 

area of responsibility for the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in 

support of a military operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Items of Special Interest 

Competitive salary and benefits for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals 

The committee believes the Department of Defense must develop 

new and innovative methods to attract and manage talent with 

highly valuable technical skills. The committee recognizes that 

with new technologies and systems, the civilian and military workforce must be well-trained in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). To this end, the Department of 

Defense, in coordination with the Office of Personnel Management 

and the Department of Energy, should conduct a comparison of salary and benefits for government professional engineers and scientists compared to similar positions in the private sector, and report the results of such comparison to the congressional defense 

committees no later than one year after the date of enactment of 

this Act. This study should consider new competitive strategies to 

hire and retain a skilled workforce in the STEM fields. 

(285) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Clarification of authority for use of advisors and trainers 

for training of personnel of foreign ministries with security missions under defense institution capacity building authorities (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 332 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the provision of 

assistance to build the institutional capacity of foreign partners. 

The committee expects the Department of Defense to continue its 

efforts to emphasize strengthening the defense institutions of 

friendly foreign nations as a key component of its security cooperation programs and believes the modification contained in this provision will provide appropriate flexibility for the Department to fulfill 

its requirements under section 332 of title 10, United States Code. 

Modification to Department of Defense State Partnership 

Program (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical modification to section 341(b)(2) of title 10, United States 

Code to clarify the conditions under which vetting pursuant to section 362, title 10, United States Code, is required for the conduct 

of Department of Defense State Partnership Program activities. 

The committee notes that this technical correction does not constitute a change in congressional intent but rather seeks to clarify 

its longstanding intent that only those activities that involve the 

provision of training and assistance require such vetting. 

Expansion of Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to include irregular warfare (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 354 of title 10, United States Code and expand the Regional 

Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program to include irregular warfare. The committee notes that adversarial nations are becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S. interests and partnerships and destabilizing regional order through the use of asymmetric means that often fall below the threshold of traditional 

armed conflict. As such, the committee believes it is important that 

the Department of Defense’s efforts to build the capacity of foreign 

partner forces reflect the evolving nature of the global security environment. 

286 

Extension and modification of authority to support border 

security operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 

1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended, by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide support on a reimbursable basis to the 

Government of Oman and Government of Pakistan for the purposes 

of supporting and enhancing efforts of the armed forces of Oman 

and Pakistan to increase and sustain security along the borders of 

Yemen and Afghanistan, respectively. 

The provision would also require quarterly reports on the use of 

this authority, including descriptions of the efforts of each country 

reimbursed and assessments of the value of such efforts. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report 15 days prior to the provision of support under this authority to any country that has not previously received such support detailing the purpose, amount, and anticipated duration of the 

support along with a certification that the recipient country has increased border security and that the provision of such support is 

in the interest of United States national security. This provision 

would also add several conditions on reimbursements to Pakistan. 

Finally, the provision would extend this authority through December 31, 2021. 

Legal and policy review of advise, assist, and accompany 

missions (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the General Counsel of 

the Department of Defense, in coordination with the appropriate 

combatant commands, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on a review of the legal and policy frameworks associated with advise, assist, and accompany missions by United States 

military personnel. 

Technical corrections relating to defense security cooperation statutory reorganization (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical corrections to title 10, United States Code, and other legislation referencing sections that were redesignated under section 1241 

of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328). 

Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training 

School (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to operate and maintain the Naval Small 

Craft Instruction and Technical Training School (NAVSCIATTS). 

287 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority under section 1222 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–238), as most recently 

amended by section 1212 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–125), to continue certain established provisions applicable to the Afghanistan Security Forces 

Fund (ASFF), including use of the funds, transfer authority, and 

acceptance of contributions to provide assistance to the security 

forces of the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior of Afghanistan, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 

training, and funds for developing the capacity of Afghanistan’s security ministries. 

This provision would also continue the authorization for the Department of Defense to accept the return of equipment procured 

using ASFF that is damaged, excess to need, or otherwise not accepted by the Afghan security forces. The provision would extend 

spending goals for the ASFF to promote the recruitment, training, 

and integration of women into the Afghan security forces. It would 

also include additional reporting criteria in the Secretary of Defense’s assessment of the progress made by the Afghan government 

toward achieving security, peace, and reconciliation objectives. Additionally, it would extend the authorization for the Secretary of 

Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to withhold 

assistance for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces if 

the determination is made that such progress has been insufficient. 

The committee encourages the provision of assistance to be closely 

tied to progress in these critical areas. 

The committee has closely watched the ongoing efforts to reform 

Afghan government institutions and root out corruption in commitment to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous society. The introduction 

of the bilateral U.S.-Afghanistan Compact, with a focus on the four 

pillars of governance, economics, peace and reconciliation, and security, was a welcome step in the right direction. However, the 

committee is disappointed by the lack of transparency provided by 

the Department of Defense and the Department of State on the 

central tenants of the Compact and the associated benchmarks. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, to provide a briefing to 

the committee on the Compact, including the benchmarks and associated timelines, no later than October 31, 2018. 

The committee understands that the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC–A) conducted a tactical wheeled 

vehicle (TWV) optimization study in 2016 in support of the Afghan 

National Defense and Security Forces with a focus on creating a 

sustainable, affordable, and effective fleet to increase combat capability and force protection for occupants. The committee would like 

to understand how this study has informed procurement decisions 

for TWV in the ASFF. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to Armed Services Committee of the Senate not later than October 31, 2018, on the results 

of the TWV study, including the types of vehicles considered in the 

288 

study; their respective cost, operational survivability, and sustainability; and how the results of the study are reflected in ASFF procurements. 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 

of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority to make Coalition Support Fund (CSF) reimbursements 

under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended, through fiscal 

year 2019 and would limit the total amount of reimbursements 

that may be provided in fiscal year 2019 to $350.0 million. Under 

this provision, the Secretary of Defense may use Coalition Support 

Funds to reimburse certain nations for support provided to or in 

connection with U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

Syria. This authority may only be used with regard to Pakistan 

pursuant to section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended by this Act. 

The committee recognizes that stability in the South Asia region 

cannot be achieved without stability in Pakistan and that engaging 

with the Government of Pakistan in order to ensure a strong, stable, and secure nation is consistent with the national security goals 

of the United States. The relationship between the United States 

and Pakistan, however, is under significant strain. Cooperation in 

key areas, to include counterterrorism, has fallen short of expectations and has, in some cases, run counter to U.S. national security 

interests and regional stability. The committee recognizes that 

there are a number of areas in which U.S. and Pakistani national 

security interests converge and that it is important to continue to 

seek methods and processes by which coordination and cooperation 

can occur in transparent and mutually beneficial ways. Therefore, 

the committee recommends the provision of CSF reimbursements 

for a set of narrowly defined, measurable border security activities 

under the conditions set forth in section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), 

as amended by this Act, in the hope that such efforts may provide 

a productive framework for continued U.S.-Pakistani engagement 

in the future. 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2019, the authority under section 1222 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–238), as most recently amended by section 1212 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public 

Law 115–125), to transfer defense articles being drawn down in Afghanistan and to provide defense services in connection with such 

transfers to the military and security forces of Afghanistan. The 

provision would also extend through fiscal year 2019 the exemption 

for excess defense articles (EDA) transferred from Department of 

Defense stocks in Afghanistan from counting toward the annual 

289 

limitation on the aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 

516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87–195). 

Modification of reporting requirements for special immigrant visas for Afghan allies program (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would renew a reporting requirement under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 

to assess the health of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) application process and identify any delays in orderly visa processing. Afghan allies work with the United States and coalition partners, 

often at great personal risk and sacrifice. Sustaining support from 

Afghan individuals willing to partner with the U.S. Government is 

critical to the mission in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned 

by reports that the SIV application process may be hampered by 

a breakdown in interagency coordination resulting in undue delay, 

needless stress on applicants, and a sizable drop in SIV admissions 

during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2018. 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran 

Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the 

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority under section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291) until December 31, 2020. 

The recommended provision would also limit the obligation and 

expenditure of more than $450.0 million of the funds available for 

activities under the section 1236 authority until the Secretary of 

Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report 

that describes the roles, missions, and responsibilities of any future 

U.S. military presence in Iraq, provides information on anticipated 

funding requirements, and provides a transition plan for operational sustainment activities of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) for 

fiscal years after fiscal year 2019. 

The committee recognizes the significant progress and achievements of the ISF in the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria (ISIS), including the recapture of numerous ISIS strongholds. Furthermore, the committee supports continued engagement 

and cooperation with the ISF and the Government of Iraq to secure 

these gains via the ISF’s continued pursuit of remaining ISIS elements, enhanced border security, stabilization of liberated areas, 

and the promotion of equitable governance. In light of ISIS’s gains 

in the wake of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, the 

committee seeks greater clarity from the Department of Defense 

(DOD) on the requirements for an enduring U.S. military presence 

in Iraq to prevent a similar resurgence in the future. The committee also seeks greater clarity from DOD on future plans to support the ISF given its growing capabilities and status as the sole 

legitimate security guarantor in Iraq. 

The committee notes that despite progress on the battlefield, 

ISIS continues to pose a security threat to Iraq, including the Iraqi 

Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish communities and religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, and to the stability of the Middle East more broadVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
290 

ly. The committee also recognizes that the lasting defeat of ISIS 

and ongoing stabilization efforts are critical to maintaining an Iraq 

in which all faiths, sects, and ethnicities are afforded equal protection and full integration into society. The committee believes that 

the United States, in coordination with coalition partners, should 

continue necessary support to Iraqi security forces with a national 

security mission in their fight against ISIS. The committee notes 

that Iraqi security forces with a national security mission may include Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni tribal elements, as well as other security forces that are committed to protecting highly vulnerable 

ethnic and religious communities, such as Yazidi, Christian, Assyrian, and Turkoman, against the ISIS threat. As requirements are 

identified and validated, the committee urges the department to 

provide security assistance to such forces serving a national security mission in an expeditious and responsive manner. 

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition (sec. 1222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291), as most recently amended by section 1223 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 

115–91), through December 31, 2019. The provision would also 

limit the obligation or expenditure of funds for activities under section 1209 until the President submits the report on United States 

strategy required under section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and the 

Secretary of Defense submits a detailed report to the congressional 

defense committees describing the intended use of this authority 

during fiscal year 2019, including the forces to be trained and 

equipped, for what purposes, and the planned level of engagement 

between such forces and U.S personnel. Lastly, the provision would 

require the Secretary of Defense to submit a certification every 120 

days related to the activities conducted by partner forces trained 

and equipped under this authority. 

The committee is deeply concerned by the lack of clarity and conflicting messages from administration officials related to the Middle East and, specifically, Syria. The committee recognizes the significant progress made by the U.S and our partners against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria, including the liberation of nearly all territory previously held by the group, but the 

committee believes that the activities of the U.S. military in Syria 

are not adequately integrated into a broader strategy designed to 

stabilize Syria and address the factors that gave rise to ISIS. The 

committee notes that the influence of Russia and Iran have expanded in Syria at the expense of American interests and that 

General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of U.S. Central Command, 

testified on March 13, 2018, that the Assad regime is ‘‘ascendant.’’ 

Simultaneously, the United States’ support for some partner forces 

in Syria has created significant tension with Turkey, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally. 

The committee notes that the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request includes $300 million to continue the training and 

291 

equipping of vetted opposition forces in Syria, yet the President has 

publicly expressed his intent to remove U.S. forces from Syria in 

the near future. This inconsistency, paired with the administration’s failure to submit the report on the United States strategy for 

Syria required by section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), inhibit the committee’s ability to sufficiently consider the continuation of this authority for fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee urges the administration to promptly provide details necessary for the Congress 

to adequately evaluate the requirement for this authority and how 

it contributes to the accomplishment of U.S. objectives in Syria. 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC–I) for 

one year. The provision would also limit the obligation or expenditure of more than 25 percent of funds available for fiscal year 2019 

pending the submission of the report on the United States strategy 

in Iraq required by the Joint Explanatory Statement on the National Defense Authorization of Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

91) and a plan for normalization of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq to conform to other similar embassy-based entities, including the transition of funding from the Department of Defense 

to the Department of State by the beginning of fiscal year 2020. 

The committee notes that the transition plan submitted by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) failed to provide the level of detail required. 

Furthermore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit to the congressional defense and foreign relations committees a report, not later than September 1, 

2018, that addresses the following: (1) A description of OSC–I’s 

mission and how it relates to the missions of other U.S. military 

personnel in Iraq, including those operating under the command of 

Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve; (2) A description of activities undertaken by OSC–I to date; (3) An assessment of OSC–I’s capabilities to perform defense institution building 

activities; (4) An evaluation of whether Department of Defense 

goals, objectives, plans, and guidance for executing security cooperation programs in Iraq through OSC–I are sufficient; (5) An 

evaluation of the efficacy of OSC–I’s organizational and funding 

model compared to models of other offices of security cooperation; 

(6) An assessment of the adequacy of the plan to transition activities funded by the Department of Defense under OSC–I to other 

departments and agencies required by the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328); and (7) Any other matters 

deemed relevant by the Comptroller General. 

292 

Syria Study Group (sec. 1224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

Syria Study Group tasked with providing a report with findings 

and recommendations on the military and diplomatic strategy of 

the United States with respect to the conflict in Syria. The Syria 

Study Group would submit the report not later than June 30, 2019, 

to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Committee on 

Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate, the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the majority and 

minority leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives. 

Modification of annual report on military power of Iran 

(sec. 1225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add additional elements to the annual report on the military power of Iran 

required under section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), to include information on the Government of Iran’s military cooperation with the 

Russian Federation, support to the Houthis in Yemen, and its involvement in the trafficking of weapons and weapons systems to 

certain countries. 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian 

Federation 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the 

United States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2019 section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), which 

prohibits funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department 

of Defense from being used for bilateral military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation 

without certain certifications by the Secretary of Defense, made in 

coordination with the Secretary of State, or unless certain waiver 

conditions are met. The provision would also clarify that the limitation shall not be construed to limit bilateral military-to-military 

dialogue between the United States and the Russian Federation for 

the purposes of reducing the risk of conflict. 

Limitation on availability of funds relating to sovereignty of 

the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds authorized to be appropriated or made available by this Act 

for fiscal year 2019 for the Department of Defense to implement 

any activity that recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea. 

293 

Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 

1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2021 the authority under section 1250 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92) as amended by section 1234 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) for the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, 

to provide security assistance, including defensive lethal assistance, 

and intelligence support to military and other security forces of the 

Government of Ukraine. The provision would authorize the use of 

up to $200.0 million in fiscal year 2019 to provide security assistance to Ukraine. 

The committee continues to believe that defense institutional reforms are critical to sustaining capabilities developed using security assistance provided under this and other authorities. Therefore, the provision would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of 

50 percent of the funds available in fiscal year 2019 under this authority until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies that Ukraine has taken substantial action 

to make defense institutional reforms. With respect to the certification on Ukrainian defense institutional reforms, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider, among other factors, whether the Government of Ukraine has enacted legislation 

that ensures a solid legal basis for the implementation of defense 

reforms consistent with Ukraine’s Strategic Defense Bulletin. 

The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider, as part of the certification process, defense institutional reforms that promote more efficient use of defense resources, which 

will ultimately enable a more effective defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and allow Ukraine to achieve its 

full potential as a strategic partner of the United States. Therefore, 

the committee urges the Department of Defense to encourage the 

Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to institutionalize a formal internal 

control measures program and a risk management framework to 

identify, prioritize, report, and mitigate operational and financial 

risk before it impairs the strategic objectives of the Armed Forces 

of Ukraine. 

The committee also urges the Department of Defense to encourage Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s state defense concern, to initiate an 

audit of its financial statements and a corporate governance review 

that are in strict accordance with international auditing and accounting standards. 

The committee recognizes that fulfilling the promises of the 

Euromaidan and achieving stability, security, and prosperity for all 

Ukrainians ultimately depends on effectively countering corruption. 

The committee commends the efforts of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and encourages the Government 

of Ukraine to ensure NABU and other anti-corruption institutions 

in Ukraine are fully supported, resourced, and defended. The committee also urges the Government of Ukraine to establish an independent anti-corruption court in line with the recommendations of 

the Venice Commission. While the committee welcomes the establishment of Ukraine’s electronic asset declaration system as an imVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Jun 07, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
294 

portant step for greater transparency, the committee encourages 

the Government of Ukraine to take appropriate actions to ensure 

this system does not place unnecessary burdens or pressure on civil 

society, especially those individuals dedicated to achieving greater 

transparency and accountability in Ukraine. 

The committee remains deeply concerned by the continuing aggression of Russia and Russian-led separatist forces in Ukraine. 

The committee welcomes the delivery of Javelin Missiles and Javelin Command Launch Units to Ukraine, which sends a strong signal of the United States’ commitment to the defense of allies and 

partners. The committee continues to emphasize the importance of 

providing security assistance and intelligence support, including 

defensive lethal assistance, to the Government of Ukraine to build 

its capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Sense of Senate on relocation of Joint Intelligence Analysis 

Complex (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that in consideration of any future plans, including the conduct of any analysis of alternatives, regarding the 

relocation of U.S. European Command’s Joint Intelligence Analysis 

Complex, the Secretary of Defense should maintain its geographic 

location within the United Kingdom and its collocation with the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Intelligence Fusion 

Center. 

Sense of Senate on enhancing deterrence against Russian 

aggression in Europe (sec. 1235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that in order to protect the national security 

of the United States, it is the policy of the United States to pursue 

an integrated approach to strengthening the defense of allies and 

partners in Europe as part of a broader strategy backed by all elements of United States power to deter and, if necessary, defeat 

Russian aggression. The provision would also express the sense of 

the Senate that in order to do so, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State and in consultation with the 

Commander, U.S. European Command, should consider specific 

steps to improve U.S. combat capability and capacity in Europe, increase U.S. forward presence in Europe, maintain robust security 

assistance for allies and partners in Europe, promote reforms within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and enhance 

multilateral security cooperation among U.S. partners and allies, 

including between NATO and the European Union. 

The provision would primarily address activities to be conducted 

by the Secretary of Defense related to conventional deterrence. 

However, the committee recognizes that a comprehensive strategy 

to deter Russian aggression requires a whole-of-government approach, and must address Russian malign influence activities, 

which pose an urgent threat to democratic institutions, including 

in the United States, and to stability in Europe. 

The committee believes a comprehensive, integrated approach to 

strengthen the capabilities of allies and partners in Europe to deter 

and defend against the Russian hybrid threat is urgently needed. 

295 

Russian aggression utilizing the full spectrum of national power 

threatens our most vulnerable European allies and partners and 

continues to result in harm to civilians, the suppression of human 

rights, loss of faith in democracy, and the undermining of the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors. In particular, the committee condemns the ongoing Russian violations of the territorial integrity of 

Georgia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Ukraine over Crimea and Donbass. 

Not later than March 1, 2019, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy shall provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the Department of Defense’s strategy for enhancing deterrence against Russian aggression by strengthening the defense of 

allies and partners in Europe, including the Department’s consideration and/or implementation of the specific steps described in the 

provision. 

Technical amendments related to NATO Support and Procurement Organization and related NATO agreements 

(sec. 1236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise section 

2350d of title 10, United States Code and section 2761(e)(3) of title 

22, United States Code to reflect the current North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) organizational structure and would permit 

NATO agency reform processes to apply U.S. statutory provisions 

to the updated NATO organization. 

Report on security cooperation between the Russian Federation and Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (sec. 1237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to submit a report not 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on security cooperation between the Russian Federation and Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to the appropriate congressional committees. 

Sense of Senate on countering Russian malign influence 

(sec. 1238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 

of State should urgently prioritize the completion of a comprehensive strategy to counter Russian malign influence and submit to 

Congress the report required by section 1239A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

Russian aggression below the level of direct military conflict continues to be an immediate and urgent threat to the United States, 

its allies, and partners. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently confirmed the unanimous assessment of the intelligence community in January 2017 that ‘‘Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US 

presidential election.’’ In February 2018, then-Director of Central 

Intelligence Michael Pompeo testified that, with regard to Russian 

interference in the 2018 mid-term elections, ‘‘[W]e have seen Russian activity and intentions to have an impact on the next election 

cycle here.’’ Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testified 

at that same hearing that Russia ‘‘will conduct bolder and more 

296 

disruptive cyber operations during the next year’’ and that Russia 

‘‘will work to use cyber operations to achieve strategic objectives 

unless they face clear repercussions for their cyber operations.’’ 

The actions that the U.S. Government has taken to date have not 

succeeded in deterring Russia from engaging in asymmetric aggression. In February of this year, then-Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, Admiral Michael Rogers, testified that ‘‘President Putin has 

clearly come to the conclusion there’s little price to pay here.’’ In 

addition, then-National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said in 

April 2018 with respect to Russia, ‘‘We have failed to impose sufficient costs.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the U.S. government continues 

to lack a unified, whole-of-government strategy to impose real costs 

on Vladimir Putin and his regime in order to deter future Russian 

malign aggression. In March 2018, Commander, U.S. European 

Command, General Curtis Scaparrotti, testified, ‘‘I don’t believe 

there’s an effective unification across the interagency with the energy and the focus that we could attain.’’ The absence of a comprehensive strategy persists despite the requirement under section 

1239A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) for the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to develop and report to Congress on such an approach. The strategy must be coordinated at the highest levels of 

government and integrate all tools of national power, bringing together military, diplomatic, cyber, informational, financial, and economic measures to counter Russian malign influence. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of 

State to dedicate all necessary resources to complete the strategy 

and submit the required report without delay. 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region 

Redesignation, expansion, and extension of Southeast Asia 

Maritime Security Initiative (sec. 1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to: redesignate the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative; add Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries of assistance and training; add India as a covered country eligible for 

payment of certain incremental expenses; and extend the authority 

under the section through December 31, 2025. 

The committee continues to strongly support efforts under the 

Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at enhancing 

the capabilities of regional partners to more effectively exercise 

control over their maritime territory and to deter adversaries. The 

committee is encouraged by the progress that has been made under 

the initiative, and notes that to date, the Department of Defense 

has utilized the authority under section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), 

as amended, to support specified partner capacity-building efforts 

in the region, to include the provision of training, sustainment support, and participation in multilateral engagements. The committee 

recognizes that the initiative was designed to support a long-term 

297 

capacity building effort, which will require increased resources in 

future years as requirements are established and refined, as programs mature, and as the regional security environment continues 

to evolve. 

The committee believes the Department’s efforts to improve maritime domain awareness and maritime security should be fully integrated into a U.S. strategy for a free and open Indo-Pacific. 

Therefore, the committee supports redesignating the authority 

under section 1263 as the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, 

the inclusion of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as recipient countries, 

and the addition of India as a covered country to encourage its participation in regional security initiatives of this kind. Furthermore, 

as a demonstration of the United States’ commitment to allies and 

partners in the region, the committee supports the extension of the 

Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative through the end of 2025. 

Beyond the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, the committee encourages the Department to make use of the full complement of security cooperation authorities available to the Department, particularly those under section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), 

to enhance the capabilities of foreign security partners in South 

and Southeast Asia to protect mutual security interests. 

Modification of annual report on military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 

(sec. 1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1202(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), and modify the annual report on 

military and security developments involving the People’s Republic 

of China. 

While significant attention has been focused on Russian malign 

influence in recent years, the committee is also concerned by China’s increasingly active influence operations, which exploit the 

openness of democratic systems, including in the United States. 

Therefore, among other elements that would be added to the matters included in the annual report for analyses and forecasts, the 

provision would add efforts by China to influence the media, cultural institutions, business, and academic and policy communities 

of the United States to be more favorable to its security and military strategy and objectives. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is not the agency primarily responsible for countering Chinese malign influence in the United States. However, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine how DOD can make 

appropriate use of existing authorities and resources to support 

interagency efforts to counter Chinese malign influence. For example, the committee is concerned about China’s use of Confucius Institutes-which are under the supervision of Hanban, a Chinese 

state agency-as a tool of malign influence at American universities. 

Multiple reports by academic organizations have highlighted the 

threat to academic freedom and open debate posed by Confucius Institutes, and have called on universities to terminate or substantially renegotiate agreements with Hanban. In order to protect free 

298 

inquiry and free expression, the Secretary of Defense could examine whether DOD should terminate research and development partnerships with universities that fail to terminate or substantially renegotiate agreements with Hanban. 

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the importance of a strong U.S. defense relationship with Taiwan. 

Redesignation and modification of sense of Congress and 

initiative for the Indo-Asia-Pacific region (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2018 (Public Law 115–91) by redesignating the ‘‘Indo-Asia-Pacific 

Stability Initiative’’ as the ‘‘Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative’’ and 

making modifications to emphasize the initiative’s alignment with 

the National Defense Strategy and its focus on minimizing the risk 

of executing the contingency plans of the Department of Defense. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Commander, United States Pacific Command, to 

submit a future years plan on activities and resources of the initiative no later than March 1, 2019. 

Prohibition on participation of the People’s Republic of 

China in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises 

(sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from enabling or facilitating the participation 

of the People’s Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific 

(RIMPAC) naval exercise unless the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that China has ceased all land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, removed all weapons 

from its land reclamation sites, and established a consistent 4-year 

track record of taking actions toward stabilizing the region. 

Assessment of and report on geopolitical conditions in the 

Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1246) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Defense to select and enter into an agreement with an 

entity independent of the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the geopolitical conditions in the Indo-Pacific region 

that are necessary for the successful implementation of the National Defense Strategy. At a minimum, the provision would require the assessment to address the geopolitical conditions in the 

Indo-Pacific region, including any change in economic and political 

relations, that are necessary to support United States military requirements for forward defense, extensive forward basing, and alliance formation and strengthening. The provision would require 

that the independent entity selected submit a report on the results 

of the assessment to the appropriate congressional committees not 

later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

299 

The committee has emphasized the importance of translating 

strategy into force capabilities and posture through the budgeting 

and acquisition processes within the Department of Defense. It is 

equally important and necessary to examine the requirements that 

military strategy imposes on diplomacy and other activities of the 

government as a whole. A military strategy that relies on heavier 

forward deployment and expanded basing structures and access 

could foreseeably require significant changes in relations with nations in the region, which has implications for U.S. policy concerning trade, security assistance, foreign aid, economic investment, and diplomacy. Likewise, broadening and deepening alliances may require changes in military strategy. For example, alliance credibility and cohesion in the Indo-Pacific region could necessitate that the United States commit to a robust forward defense 

in the Indo-Pacific region, which would require that U.S. and allied 

air, naval, and ground forces would have to develop capabilities 

and concepts of operations to survive and operate within the range 

of ballistic and cruise missiles. 

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship 

(sec. 1247) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should strengthen and 

enhance its major defense partnership with India and work toward 

mutual security objectives. 

Sense of Senate on strategic importance of maintaining 

commitments under Compacts of Free Association (sec. 

1248) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that maintaining the commitments of the 

United States under the Compacts of Free Association is of vital 

strategic importance to the national security interests of the United 

States. 

The committee notes that under compacts with the Freely Associated States (FAS), the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, and Palau, the U.S. has exclusive military 

use rights in these countries in exchange for the defense of the 

FAS. These territories were once used by the U.S. for nuclear 

weapons testing, and, according to the Department of Defense, the 

compacts have enabled it to maintain critical access in the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, the United States’ Compacts of Free Association (COFA) are critical to strengthening partnerships and 

maintaining commitments in the Indo-Pacific Theater. It is the 

sense of the Senate that these partnerships and commitments are 

of vital strategic importance to the national security interests of 

the United States. 

Sense of the Senate on United States military forces on the 

Korean Peninsula (sec. 1249) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the presence of United States military 

forces on the Korean Peninsula and across the Indo-Pacific region 

continues to play a critical role in safeguarding the peaceful and 

300 

stable rules-based international order. The provision would also express that the significant removal of United States military forces 

from the Korean peninsula is a non-negotiable item as it relates to 

the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 

Subtitle F—Reports 

Report on military and coercive activities of the People’s 

Republic of China in the South China Sea (sec. 1251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, 

to submit to the congressional defense committees and release to 

the public, a report on the military and coercive activities of China 

in the South China Sea in connection with such activity immediately after the commencement of any significant reclamation or 

militarization activity by the People’s Republic of China in the 

South China Sea, including any significant military deployment or 

operation or infrastructure construction. 

The committee is concerned that sufficient information has not 

been made publicly available in a timely fashion regarding China’s 

reclamation and militarization activities of China in the South 

China Sea. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to determine that the public interest in selective declassification of China’s activities in the South China Sea outweighs the potential damage from disclosure. The Secretary should consider 

mandating that the directors of National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency provide the Bureau of 

Intelligence and Research (INR) at the State Department with declassified aircraft-generated imagery and supporting analysis describing Chinese activities of concern. The committee also urges 

that the State Department brief and distribute the reports to the 

media and throughout Southeast Asia. 

Report on terrorist use of human shields (sec. 1252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees not 

later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, on the use of 

human shields by terrorist groups to protect otherwise lawful targets from attack and efforts to incorporate lessons learned to address the challenge posed by the use of human shields. 

Report on Arctic strategies (sec. 1253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force not later than 180 days after the enactment 

of this Act to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the strategy of the Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, and the 

Air Force for the Arctic region. The committee recognizes that the 

Arctic is a region of growing strategic importance to the national 

security interest of the United States and that the Secretary of Defense should improve the posture and capabilities of the Department of Defense to meet the growing array of challenges in the reVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
301 

gion, with a particular focus on the People’s Republic of China and 

the Russian Federation. 

Report on permanent stationing of a United States Army 

brigade combat team in the Republic of Poland (sec. 

1254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require not 

later than March 1, 2019, that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility and advisability of permanently stationing a United States Army brigade combat team in 

the Republic of Poland. 

Reports on nuclear capabilities of the Democratic People’s 

Republic of Korea (sec. 1255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, not 

later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to submit to the appropriate committees a report on the 

status of the nuclear program of the Democratic People’s Republic 

of Korea to establish a baseline of progress for negotiations with respect to denuclearization. The provision would require, in the case 

of an agreement between the United States and the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea, the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

written update to the required baseline report not later than 60 

days after the date on which the agreement is reached and every 

90 days thereafter. 

The provision would also require, not later than 180 days after 

the date on which the baseline report is submitted and every 180 

days thereafter, that the written update to the baseline report include: (1) an assessment of the establishment of safeguards, other 

control mechanisms, and other assurances secured from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to ensure its activities permitted 

under any agreement will not be used to further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose, including research on 

or development of a nuclear explosive device; and (2) an assessment of the capacity of the United States or an international organization, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, to effectively access and investigate suspicious sites in the Democratic 

People’s Republic of Korea or allegations of covered nuclear-related 

activities, including storage sites for nuclear weapons. 

Report on United States military training opportunities 

with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 

1256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should continue 

to place emphasis on United States military training exercises with 

allies in the Indo-Pacific region. The provision would also require 

that, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary of Defense submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report on future United States military training opportunities with allied partner countries in the Indo-Pacific region. 

302 

Subtitle G—Others Matters 

Modification of authorities relating to acquisition and crossservicing agreements (sec. 1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2342 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (ACSAs) to facilitate 

transfers of logistics support, supplies, and services to third-party 

countries or organizations and clarify that ACSAs may not provide 

for, or otherwise constitute by itself a commitment for, the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report 

on the Department’s use of the authority to the appropriate committees of Congress. 

The committee acknowledges the value of ACSAs with an array 

of partners, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, 

parties to bilateral and collective defense treaties and agreements 

with the United States, and the wide array of partners with which 

the United States cooperates. Such agreements provide the Department of Defense with flexibility, access, and support on the basis 

of full reciprocity in numerous regions around the world in the furtherance of U.S. national security interests. ACSAs may also help 

to enhance readiness at minimal cost and increase military effectiveness by allowing partners and allies to practice mutual support 

procedures during military exercises. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Department has 

not kept Congress adequately informed of new ACSAs being signed 

with non-NATO member countries or provided sufficient information with respect to how the Department is ensuring that U.S.-provided logistics support, supplies, and services are being fully reimbursed on a reciprocal basis. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 

Congress, no later than November 1, 2018, that evaluates the use 

of ACSAs by the Department of Defense (DOD), including: (1) A list 

of current ACSAs signed by the United States; (2) The criteria and 

processes used by DOD to determine the need for ACSAs with allies and partners; (3) The extent to which DOD is complying with 

the requirements of section 2342 of title 10, United States Code, to 

account for support provided under ACSAs and receive reciprocal 

support or reimbursements from partner nations; (4) The extent to 

which DOD has complied with the requirement of section 2342 of 

title 10, United States Code, to notify Congress of their intent to 

sign an ACSA with a non-NATO member country; (5) Any known 

instances of DOD’s use of ACSAs as mechanisms for transfers of 

logistics support, supplies, and services to third-party countries for 

which there is no ACSA currently in place; (6) Recommendations 

for improving DOD’s administration of the ACSA authority; and (7) 

Any other matters deemed relevant by the Comptroller General. 

Extension of authority for transfer of amounts for Global 

Engagement Center (sec. 1262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 

one year the transfer authority contained in section 1287(e)(1) of 

303 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 relating to the Global Engagement Center (GEC). 

The committee strongly supports the mission of the GEC to 

counter false and misleading messaging by both state and nonstate adversaries and notes the importance of integrating military 

and nonmilitary tools of statecraft to address these challenges. The 

committee believes continuation of the transfer authority provided 

by this provision helps to facilitate such whole-of-government approaches. 

The committee notes that the Departments of State and Defense 

signed a memorandum of understanding on February 26, 2018, to 

facilitate the transfer of $40.0 million for the purposes of countering propaganda and disinformation from foreign nations, more 

than a year after such transfers were authorized by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and after the Intelligence Community publicly reported Russian efforts to influence 

the 2016 elections. The committee has significant concern about delayed action on these issues in the face of a significant and growing 

threat from Russia. The committee strongly encourages the Departments of State and Defense to fully utilize the authorities that 

have been provided to more aggressively counter propaganda by 

Russia and other state and non-state actors. 

Sense of Senate on purchase by Turkey of S–400 air defense 

system (sec. 1263) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the President should impose and apply 

sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries through 

Sanctions Act (Public Law 115–44) against the Republic of Turkey 

if it purchases the S–400 air defense system from the Russian Federation. 

The Republic of Turkey is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) ally and critical strategic partner of the United States. The 

committee recognizes that the United States-Turkey alliance remains essential for deterring and countering Russian aggression, 

countering Iranian malign influence, and combating terrorism, all 

of which are priorities of the new National Defense Strategy. Moreover, the primary beneficiaries of any rupture in the United StatesTurkey alliance would be Russia and Iran. Thus, the committee 

urges the administration to continue working with the Government 

of Turkey to develop cooperative approaches to shared challenges, 

including counterterrorism cooperation concerning the Kurdistan 

Workers’ Party (PKK), defeating ISIS, the situation in Syria, 

NATO posture and activities in the Black Sea, and countering Iranian malign influence, among others. 

However, the committee remains concerned about a number of 

issues, which threaten to undermine the foundation for a strong 

and sustainable United States-Turkey alliance. For example, Turkey’s purchase of the S–400 air defense system from the Russian 

Federation would be incompatible with Turkey’s commitments as a 

NATO ally. Not only would the purchase put billions of dollars into 

the Russian military industrial complex and give more profits to 

Vladimir Putin’s corrupt network of kleptocrats, it would subsidize 

Russian aggression on Turkey’s periphery, including in Syria and 

304 

Ukraine. The committee urges the Government of Turkey to abandon any plans for the purchase of the S–400 air defense system 

from the Russian Federation. At the same time, the committee 

urges the administration to work with the Government of Turkey 

to identify alternatives to the S–400 air defense system that meet 

Turkey’s defense requirements. 

Beyond defense, there are other concerning issues that have a 

negative impact on United States-Turkey relations. The committee 

has serious concerns about cases against U.S. citizens who have 

been arrested under Turkey’s state of emergency, including Pastor 

Andrew Brunson, and calls for their immediate release. The committee also remains disturbed by the violence that took place outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence in Washington, D.C. on 

May 16, 2017, and believes the perpetrators should be brought to 

justice under United States law. More broadly, the committee is 

concerned by indications of deteriorating respect for human rights 

and the rule of law in Turkey. As an important member of NATO, 

the committee calls on the Government of Turkey to uphold its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, which commits NATO 

allies to ‘‘safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization 

of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual 

liberty and the rule of law.’’ 

Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in 

national security interest of the United States (sec. 1264) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State 

and in consultation with the Administrator of the United States 

Agency for International Development and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide certain support for the 

stabilization activities of other Federal agencies. 

Enhancement of U.S.-Israel defense cooperation (sec. 1265) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12001(d) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2005 (Public Law 108–287) to extend the authority for the War Reserves Stockpile Ammunition-Israel through September 30, 2023. 

The provision would also authorize the President, acting through 

the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to conduct a 

joint assessment of the quantity of precision guided munitions necessary for Israel to counter regional threats. The provision would 

also amend the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) to require the Secretary of 

Defense to prescribe procedures for the rapid acquisition and deployment of supplies and associated support services urgently needed to support production of precision guided munitions. 

The committee believes that the United States should continue 

to work closely with Israel to research, develop, and eventually procure the necessary capabilities to effectively detect, map, monitor, 

operate in, and neutralize underground tunnels and share successful tactics to engage in effective tunnel warfare. Therefore, not 

later than February 1, 2019, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with Israel’s Ministry of Defense, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on anti-tunVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
305 

neling cooperation with Israel, which shall include the following 

elements: (1) An identification of specific capability gaps of the 

United States, the capability gaps of Israel, and any shared capability gaps with respect to detecting, mapping, monitoring, operating in, and neutralizing underground tunnels; (2) An identification of cooperative projects that would address those capability 

gaps and mutually benefit and strengthen the security of the 

United States and Israel; (3) An assessment of the projected cost 

for research and development efforts and the timeline for the completion of each cooperative project; (4) An assessment of the percentage of U.S. funds for cooperative projects that could be realistically and efficiently spent in the United States; (5) An identification of anti-tunnel capability gaps of the United States not likely 

to be addressed through cooperative projects; and (6) An assessment of the projected costs for procurement and fielding of jointly 

developed anti-tunneling capabilities. 

Certifications regarding actions by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 

(sec. 1266) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

expenditure of funds to provide authorized in-flight refueling to 

Saudi or Saudi-led coalition non-United States aircraft conducting 

missions in Yemen pending certifications by the Secretary of State 

that the Government of Saudi Arabia is taking certain actions related to the civil war in Yemen. The provision includes several exceptions and provides for a national security waiver that may be 

exercised by the Secretary of State. 

Sense of the Senate on support for G5 Sahel Joint Force 

countries (sec. 1267) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on support for the G5 Sahel Joint Force countries. 

Sense of Congress on broadening and expanding strategic 

partnerships and allies (sec. 1268) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States manages multiple strategic challenges through the enduring strength of its alliances and 

that it remains resolved to forge new alliances and partnerships in 

order to address shared challenges in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and 

throughout the world. 

Removal of Turkey from the F–35 program (sec. 1269) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

transfer of title for any F–35 aircraft to the Government of the Republic of Turkey until such time as the Secretary of Defense submits to the appropriate congressional committees a plan to remove 

the Government of the Republic of Turkey from participation in the 

F–35 program, to include industrial and military aspects of the program. 

306 

Increase in minimum amount of obligations from the Special Defense Acquisition Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 1270) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

amount of annual obligations from the Special Defense Acquisition 

Fund for the procurement and stocking of precision guided munitions from 20 percent to 25 percent. 

Items of Special Interest 

Advise and assist efforts in Afghanistan 

In August 2017, the President announced a new South Asia 

strategy that was accompanied by an increase of U.S. and North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan in support of a renewed effort to advise and assist Afghan forces as part 

of the NATO Resolute Support Mission. As part of the increase, the 

Army has deployed a Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB), a 

new unit created to advise and assist foreign military forces. The 

development of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces 

(ANDSF) has been a central element of successive U.S. strategies 

in Afghanistan and the Department of Defense (DOD) has utilized 

a variety of approaches to execute that strategy. The committee is 

aware of the challenges DOD has faced in prior efforts to advise 

and assist various ANDSF elements. For example, in 2013, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ‘‘GAO–13–381 Security Force Assistance: More Detailed Planning and Improved Access to Information Needed to Guide Efforts of Advisor Teams in 

Afghanistan,’’ found that advisor teams in Afghanistan needed 

clearer guidance regarding the end states, objectives, and milestones they were expected to achieve as well as improved access to 

information to guide their efforts. The GAO also discussed challenges DOD faced in fulfilling requirements for advisor personnel, 

including the Army’s decision to use personnel from non-deployed 

brigade combat teams to form advisor teams. The committee remains concerned about the efficacy of U.S. advise and assist efforts 

in Afghanistan, particularly in light of the increased emphasis on 

those efforts under the new South Asia strategy. Additionally, the 

committee is concerned by the compressed timeline under which 

the first SFAB was created, trained and equipped, and deployed to 

Afghanistan. The committee understands that the decision to accelerate the fielding of this unit created a number of challenges, including manning shortages, the scaling back of training, and reprogramming requests for essential equipment. Accordingly, the 

Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 

evaluate the following issues: (1) The extent to which DOD, in conjunction with NATO, has defined advisor team missions, goals, and 

objectives; (2) The extent to which advisors were trained and 

equipped for their specific missions in Afghanistan; (3) The ability 

of the Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigade to meet current 

and future advisor requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere; (4) 

What adjustments, if any, are being made to the manning, training 

and equipping, and deployment of the second and third SFABs; and 

(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines appropriate with respect to the advise and assist mission in Afghanistan. 

307 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services not 

later than November 1, 2018 on the Comptroller General’s preliminary findings and submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Clarification of authority to waive certain expenses for activities of regional centers for security studies 

The committee notes the important contribution of the regional 

centers for security studies for building security cooperation with 

allies and partners globally. The regional centers advance U.S. security priorities by promoting multilateral dialogue on a broad 

spectrum of shared security issues. The United States benefits from 

the participation of national security leaders from partner nations 

in the exchange of ideas promoted by the regional centers. The 

committee notes that the Department of Defense is authorized to 

provide reimbursements for the logistical expenses associated with 

the participation of foreign government officials in regional center 

activities. However, the committee understands that there may be 

concerns with the processes and associated timelines for approving 

such reimbursements that could impact participation of foreign 

government officials. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with appropriate officials from the Department of State, to provide the congressional 

defense committees a briefing on the authorities and procedures for 

making reimbursements for the logistical expenses associated with 

the participation of foreign government officials in regional center 

activities. The briefing should be provided no later than October 1, 

2018. 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies 

A key component of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts 

to build the institutional capacity of foreign security forces is defense legal institution building. Building partner security forces’ 

legal institutional capacity serves the U.S. goals of promoting accountability, the rule of law, respect for civilian control of the military, enhancing compliance with human rights and the law of 

armed conflict. In this regard, the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) is the principal resource within the 

DOD security cooperation enterprise for helping to build the legal 

capacity of foreign security forces through mobile programs deployed globally and resident courses at Naval Station Newport in 

Newport, Rhode Island. 

Over the last several years, the mission and activities of DIILS 

have expanded significantly, as U.S. forces increasingly work by, 

with, and through partner security forces. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on December, 2016, titled, ‘‘Rule of Law Assistance: DOD Should Assess Workforce Size 

of Defense Institute of International Legal Studies’’ (GAO–17–118), 

which stated that between fiscal years 2013 and 2016, DIILS assistance activities grew by nearly 50 percent, and that trend has 

continued. At the same time, the GAO report found that DIILS 

staffing during this same period had remained essentially static. 

308 

The Institute has initiated hiring in fiscal year 2018 to begin to address this staffing shortfall. 

In addition, the number of resident courses offered at the Naval 

Station Newport has increased significantly over the last several 

years. In 2017, the DIILS resident course program hosted over 200 

participants representing over 80 countries from all the Geographic 

Combatant Commands. However, the limited classroom space 

available to DIILS presents challenges for further expansion of 

resident courses to meet the growing demand. 

Another important driver for DIILS’s expanding mission has 

been the security cooperation reforms enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The consolidated 

‘‘Section 333’’ authority under that Act emphasizes the importance 

of building defense institutional capacity of friendly foreign forces, 

particularly at higher echelons, as part of capacity building programs. DIILS’s mission of providing defense legal institution building training under Title 10 authorities currently comprises more 

than one third of DIILS’s events, and the committee expects that 

this mission will continue to grow as DIILS aims to build sustained 

capacity in partner security forces over the long-term. 

In order to ensure DIILS is appropriately resourced to meet 

growing requirements for defense legal institution building, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of 

the facility requirements for DIILS at the Naval Station Newport. 

This review shall include consideration of the full range of options 

for optimizing DIILS capacity to carry out its current and expected 

mission, including an expanding role in defense legal institution 

building through both mobile and resident courses. The options 

shall include: (1) The impact of maintaining the status quo on 

DIILS ability to carry out its mission; (2) The costs and benefits of 

renovating the existing buildings available to DIILS for its administrative offices and classroom spaces; (3) The costs and benefits of 

consolidating DIILS administrative offices and classroom spaces in 

a newly constructed, single facility with sufficient capacity to accommodate DIILS’s expanding mission; and (4) Consideration of 

using any other installation or facility authority deemed appropriate by the Secretary. The committee directs the Secretary to report on the findings of this review, including a recommended 

course of action, to the congressional defense committees not later 

than January 30, 2019. 

Human rights in Burma 

The committee condemns the systematic human rights abuses 

committed against the Rohingya people in Burma, as well as attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army militant group. 

Amid disturbing reports of widespread sexual assault and violence 

against women and girls, starvation, killing, and forcible deportation, nearly 700,000 men, women, and children have been forced 

from their homes. The committee remains concerned about role of 

the Burmese military in the violence and displacement inflicted on 

the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities in Burma. 

The committee calls on the Government of Burma to: (1) Cease 

hostilities against the Rohingya in Burma and take proactive steps 

to prevent further violence; (2) Ensure the Burmese military adVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
309 

heres to international human rights standards; (3) Carry out meaningful and comprehensive investigations of credible reports of 

human rights violations, including reports of conflict-related sexual 

and gender-based violence; (4) Take steps to hold accountable those 

in the Burmese military responsible for human rights violations; 

(5) Allow immediate and unfettered humanitarian access to communities in areas affected by conflict, including Rohingya communities in Rakhine State; and (6) Cooperate with the United Nations 

High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant United Nations agencies to ensure the protection of displaced persons and the 

safe and voluntary return of Rohingya refugees and internally displaced persons. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to direct the resources necessary for ensuring full implementation of section 362 

of title 10, United States Code, which prohibits the use of funds for 

any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign 

security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information 

that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. The 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to alert the appropriate congressional committees if additional resources are required 

in order to ensure full implementation. The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to focus military-to-military exchanges with the Burmese military, including participation in regional humanitarian and disaster relief exercises, on human rights 

and necessary military reforms to promote transparency, accountability, and adherence to international human rights standards. 

Matters relating to Kosovo 

The committee fully supports efforts to normalize relations between Kosovo and Serbia through the European Union-led, U.S.- 

supported dialogue process. Normalization of relations between 

Kosovo and Serbia is in the interest of Kosovars and Serbs alike. 

Furthermore, it is vital to Kosovo and Serbia’s shared European future and essential to stability in the Western Balkans. 

The committee condemns the murder of Oliver Ivanovic on January 16, 2018. The committee urges the governments of Kosovo and 

Serbia to ensure the perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice, and to protect all those who are willing to work towards reconciliation between Kosovars and Serbs in order to improve the 

lives of citizens in both countries. 

The committee commends Kosovo’s recent passage of a border demarcation agreement with Montenegro. The committee hopes this 

agreement will enable Kosovo to move forward with the European 

Union visa liberalization process and provide incentives to advance 

other reforms, which are necessary to achieve Kosovo’s integration 

into Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

The committee continues to support U.S. assistance to the 

Kosovo Security Force as it makes the gradual transition to a 

multi-ethnic army for the Republic of Kosovo. The committee believes it is critical that the transformation of the Kosovo Security 

Forces to the Kosovo Armed Forces take place through an inclusive 

and transparent process that complies with Kosovo’s constitution, 

respects the rights and concerns of all of Kosovo’s citizens, proVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
310 

motes regional security and stability, and supports Kosovo’s aspirations for eventual full membership in NATO. 

Notifications for sensitive military operations 

The committee’s support for sensitive military operations rests, 

in part, on our ability to conduct regular and continuous oversight 

of those operations. Notifications from the Department are fundamental to that oversight, and they are also required by section 130f 

of title 10, United States Code. However, despite the Department’s 

guidelines regarding notifications, recent notifications have been 

both untimely and insufficiently detailed for the committee to conduct necessary oversight. Moreover, the committee is concerned 

that the Department has used an exception to the reporting requirement, which was included at the Department’s request, in a 

way that is inconsistent with congressional intent. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Department to comply with the following requirements for notifications of sensitive military operations going 

forward. 

First, notifications must be timely. Section 130f of title 10, 

United States Code, requires written notification of a sensitive 

military operation within 48 hours. Yet the committee has repeatedly been notified outside that window or without the required notification in writing. Oral notifications are appreciated but are not 

a substitute for compliance with these statutory requirements. 

Second, the Department must notify the Congress of sensitive operations in line with congressional intent. A reliance on the limited 

exception contained in section 130f continues to result in delayed 

or complete lack of notification. This is in direct conflict with congressional intent. 

Third, notifications must be sufficiently detailed to allow the 

committee to understand the risks, benefits, and consequences of 

sensitive military operations. The notifications received from the 

Department have been increasingly vague. In order for the Congress to perform its Constitutional duties, the committee must understand the context and intent associated with Department actions. At a minimum, notifications of sensitive military operations 

should include the following: 

(1) The legal authority for the operation; 

(2) The objectives of the operation, including any metrics 

being used to grade the success of the operation in achieving 

those objectives; 

(3) The number and type of United States military personnel 

involved in the operation; 

(4) The number and type of United States military platforms 

involved in the operation; 

(5) The number and type of foreign partner military personnel involved in the operation, if any; 

(6) The planned duration of the operation; 

(7) The location of the operation; 

(8) A description of the reasons the operation was conducted, 

including a description of the threat to be addressed by the operation and the intelligence information that precipitated the 

operation; 

311 

(9) Whether any part of the operation was conducted without 

the knowledge of the country where the operation occurred or 

any other country with a military presence in the location the 

operation occurred; 

(10) Whether any U.S. persons were the target of, or harmed 

during, the operation; 

(11) A battle damage assessment of the operation, if available; and 

(12) Any significant diplomatic issues or impacts on the Department’s operations that resulted from the operation. 

If the details described above require the notice to be classified, 

it should be submitted in a classified form. Classification is not a 

justification for omitting important details from the notice. Moreover, in the rare case that a notice contains information that the 

Department believes must be closely held within the committee, 

the Department should inform the Chairman and Ranking Member 

of the need for such handling. The committee, not the Department, 

will then determine how to handle that specific issue. The committee, not the Department, must make its own determinations 

about how to conduct the requisite oversight, and under no circumstances should the Department unilaterally exclude appropriately-cleared staff from receiving notifications to Congress that 

are required by law. 

Report on U.S. assistance to the Lebanese Security Forces 

The committee recognizes and commends the contributions of the 

Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Lebanese Internal Security 

Forces (ISF) to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria, efforts to address the threat posed by other terrorist organizations, and efforts to secure Lebanon’s borders in recent years. 

The committee also notes that U.S. assistance to the LAF is intended, in part, to enable the LAF to function as the nation’s only 

legitimate security provider and to support the implementation of 

the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 

1701 as soon as practicable. A central challenge to these efforts is 

the persistence and influence of Lebanese Hezbollah, which actively 

undermines security throughout the Middle East, facilitates the 

Government of Iran’s destabilizing agenda, and supports war 

crimes and acts of terror, while simultaneously acting as a significant political entity in Lebanon. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a report, not later 

than September 1, 2018, on U.S. assistance to the LAF and ISF. 

At a minimum, that report shall include: (1) A description of U.S. 

objectives in its support to the LAF and ISF in Lebanon and any 

progress made towards those objectives; (2) A description of support to the LAF and ISF since 2013 and a projection of continued 

support across the Future Years Defense Program; (3) An evaluation of the specific actions taken by the LAF and ISF to implement 

the terms of UNSCR 1701, to include descriptions of the scope and 

trends of LAF and ISF activities to address progress toward the 

disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups in Lebanon, the 

movement and establishment of Iranian or Hezbollah arms, personnel, and infrastructure in and through Lebanon through the use 

312 

of checkpoints and roadblocks, and other enforcement actions by 

such forces to counter related malign activities; (4) An assessment 

of the military, political, and economic factors impacting the ability 

of the LAF and ISF to enforce the terms of UNSCR 1701, as described in subsection (3) and the utilization of U.S. assistance for 

that purpose; (5) A description of destabilizing actions by the Government of Iran in Lebanon and trends of those actions, to include 

Iran’s material support of Hezbollah’s military and political entities, the status of Iran’s influence in Lebanese institutions including any operational coordination between the Lebanese security 

forces, Hezbollah, and Iranian forces, any efforts by Iran to establish infrastructure for the purposes of manufacturing or storing 

weaponry in Lebanon, and efforts by the Government of Iran in 

Lebanon to threaten the interests of the United States and its allies and partners in the region; (6) An assessment of current and 

planned end-use monitoring protocols for U.S. security assistance 

to the LAF and ISF, to include detailed descriptions of Lebanese 

forces’ adherence to those protocols and any specific instances of 

misuse or unauthorized transfer of U.S. assistance, if any, along 

with an assessment of any risk of future misuse or unauthorized 

transfer; and (7) Any other matters deemed relevant by the Secretary. 

Report on WRSA–I Stockpile Quantity Review 

The committee values the strategic alliance between the United 

States and Israel and supports an increase in the number of precision guided munitions (PGMs) in the War Reserve Stock AlliesIsrael (WRSA–I). These munitions are intended to be utilized by 

the United States, but can also be used by our ally Israel, should 

a critical need arise where longer term procurement of specific munitions may not be an option. While the stockpile contains many 

valuable munitions, the committee is concerned that some critical 

items requiring long lead-time for development may not be readily 

available. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy to conduct a review of the number of PGMs needed to 

ensure that the United States can counter regional threats and 

also to collaborate with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to gauge its 

PGM requirements should the U.S. need to provide immediate assistance. The results from this joint assessment shall be submitted 

to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2019. Included in this assessment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall outline any challenges in meeting the results of the joint 

assessment and provide recommendations to spur the national security industrial base toward a higher production rate. 

Role of Turkey in the F–35 supply chain 

The committee continues to monitor with concern the trajectory 

of the U.S.-Turkey relationship. The committee is aware that Turkey plans to buy a large number of F–35s and is a program partner 

eligible to become a supplier to the global F–35 fleet. However, the 

announced purchase by Turkey of the Almaz-Antey S–400 system 

represents the latest in a troubling series of events affecting relations between the government of Turkey and the United States. 

313 

The committee is concerned that further deterioration in the relationship between the United States and Turkey could result in disruption of cooperative programs, such as the F–35. Therefore, the 

committee requests that the Department of Defense provide to the 

congressional defense committees a briefing no later than February 

1, 2019 that shall include: (1) a component-level description of the 

current and planned supply chain contributions of Turkey to the F– 

35 program, both in manufacturing and in sustainment; and (2) 

any components for which Turkey is a sole or majority supplier, or 

where the removal of components of Turkish manufacture would 

create significant or lasting disruption for the F–35 program. 

United States-Mexico military cooperation 

The committee recognizes the importance of military cooperation 

between the United States and Mexico given their mutual national 

security interests, intertwined economies, and shared values. Furthermore, the committee acknowledges the Government of Mexico’s 

significant efforts in recent years to address the challenges posed 

by transnational criminal organizations, narcotics and human trafficking, unauthorized migration, and securing its long, geographically complex borders. Such efforts benefit not only the United 

States and Mexico, but nations throughout Latin America through 

the disruption of illicit threat networks that further degrade internal instability, erode confidence in the governance of partner nations, and establish pathways that can be exploited by criminals 

and terrorist organizations. 

With that in mind, the committee strongly supports the Department of State-led Me ́rida Initiative, which has provided $2.7 billion 

in assistance to Mexico since fiscal year 2008 to combat drug trafficking and support Mexican efforts to support human rights, combat corruption, and reform its institutions. The committee also 

strongly supports Department of Defense-led military-to-military 

engagement with Mexico. As General Lori J. Robinson, former 

Commander of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), noted 

in testimony before the committee on February 15, 2018, this engagement starts at ‘‘the tactical level and extends through the close 

ties between USNORTHCOM senior leadership and SEMAR 

[Secretarı ́a de Marina] and SEDENA [Secretarı ́a de la Defensa 

Nacional].’’ 

The committee applauds recent high-level engagement between 

senior leaders of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Government of Mexico. It also notes the success of recent exercises 

ranging from U.S. Marine Forces North’s provision of training to 

over 1,500 Mexican Marines, who are on the frontlines of combating drug trafficking, to Mexico’s participation in the UNITAS 

2017 exercise, during which U.S. and Mexican forces joined members of 16 other militaries in Peru to enhance their ability to conduct naval operations and interoperable amphibious operations, 

stability operations, and humanitarian and disaster relief missions 

in the Western Hemisphere. Such activities, along with the security 

cooperation funding provided by DOD and International Military 

Education and Training funds directed by the Department of State 

and administered by DOD, are critical to the security of both Mexico and the United States. The importance of these ties will only 

314 

increase given the challenges posed by heroin cultivation and the 

proliferation and smuggling of potent synthetic opioids, such as 

fentanyl, in and through Mexico to the United States. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to continue to deepen the military-to-military relations with Mexico through the continued provision of training and 

equipment to enhance SEDENA and SEMAR’s capabilities to combat transnational criminal organizations, regular bilateral engagements on defense with Mexican leadership, and swift coordination 

across agencies to approve training activities and exercises in ways 

that support and reinforce U.S. national security policy. 

United States policy and strategy in the Western Balkans 

The committee affirms that the United States commitment to a 

Europe whole, free, and at peace remains ironclad. Furthermore, 

the committee recognizes that security and prosperity in the Western Balkans remain essential for the success of this vision. 

However, the committee recognizes that the region confronts 

growing challenges: lagging economic growth, corruption, rising political tensions within and among states, the threat of 

radicalization and terrorism, and malign Russian influence. For example, in a hearing before the committee on March 8, 2018, General Curtis Scaparrotti, Commander of U.S. European Command, 

testified that the area that most concerned him in relation to future Russian interference was ‘‘the Balkans.’’ He added, ‘‘Russia’s 

at work in the Balkans, and I think we’ve kind of taken our eye 

off the area.’’ If unaddressed or unresolved, these challenges confronting the Western Balkans could have serious consequences for 

regional security and prosperity, as well as for U.S. interests in Europe. 

The committee believes the United States needs a clear policy 

and strategy for the Western Balkans-one that is integrated with 

the European Union’s (EU) ‘‘Strategy for the Western Balkans’’ 

and, most importantly, backed by enhanced, focused, and sustained 

engagement by senior political leaders in the United States. The 

committee encourages the president to consider the appointment of 

a Presidential Special Envoy to lead and coordinate U.S. diplomatic 

efforts in the region and oversee implementation of a U.S. strategy 

for the region across the interagency. 

The committee believes such a strategy should include diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to: (1) Support the sovereign 

right of the countries of the Western Balkans to pursue integration 

into the Euro-Atlantic community through institutions including 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU; (2) 

Counter Russian malign influence in the region; (3) Integrate U.S. 

and EU efforts to incentivize reform, combat corruption, strengthen 

the rule of law, and hold regional leaders accountable for results; 

(4) Enhance military-to-military engagement between the United 

States and the militaries of the Western Balkans countries to promote interoperability with NATO, civilian control of the military, 

procurement reforms, and regional security cooperation; (5) Promote energy security in the Western Balkans; (6) Support diplomatic efforts to normalize relations between Serbia and Kosovo 

through the EU-led, U.S.-supported dialogue process; (7) Resolve 

315 

the dispute between Greece and Macedonia, enabling Macedonia to 

move forward with integration into NATO and the EU; and (8) 

Align U.S. and EU efforts in Bosnia-Herzegovina to catalyze and 

advance necessary domestic political reforms. 

U.S. Africa Command 

In April 2018 testimony before the committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis noted, ‘‘Our efforts in Africa are largely focused 

on assisting nations facing violent terrorists to develop their own 

capability to provide internal security and mutual support against 

insurgents and terror groups.’’ The committee believes that the security cooperation efforts of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) are 

critical to support the 2018 National Defense Strategy’s direction 

to move towards a ‘‘more resource sustainable approach’’ to combat 

shared security threats to the U.S. and our partners. 

For example, the committee notes the important role regional 

partnerships in the African Union Mission in Somalia are playing 

to combat the threat posed by al-Shabaab and other terrorist 

threats in Somalia. General Thomas Waldhauser, the Commander 

of AFRICOM, stated in testimony that Ethiopia ‘‘remains a longstanding partner and contributes over 4,000 uniformed personnel 

to the African Union Mission in Somalia, further advancing regional peace and security efforts in East Africa.’’ Similarly, General 

Waldhauser noted that Kenya and Uganda ‘‘continue to develop reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities to build their capacity 

for counterterrorism operations’’ against al-Shabaab and other terrorist threats. 

Other important regional security cooperation programs, such as 

the State Department-led Global Peace Operations Initiative and 

the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, are focused 

on strengthening the capacity, capabilities, and professionalism of 

African partners to support peacekeeping and crisis response operations across the continent. 

In order to absorb and sustain security cooperation programs 

such as these, partner nations must build and maintain accountable and transparent government institutions with a commitment 

to civilian control of the military, respect for human rights, and 

good governance. The committee encourages AFRICOM to develop 

a code of conduct, in conjunction with African partner nations, to 

establish a common standard with regard to issues of defense sector corruption, including a commitment to equitable, transparent, 

and accountable defense institutions, the development and improvement of security-sector legal capacity, and a commitment to 

the rule of law. 

The committee supports these efforts and encourages AFRICOM 

to continue its emphasis on a whole-of-government approach, 

leveraging the specific skill sets of interagency partners like the 

Department of State, United States Agency for International Development, and others to synchronize and complement Department of 

Defense efforts to build the capability and capacity of our African 

partners to strengthen institutions and develop local solutions to 

radicalization, destabilization, and other drivers of conflict that undermine stability and our shared security interests. 

(317) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 

1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and authorize 

CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $335.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 

(319) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction at 

the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, 

Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

Consolidation of reporting requirements under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 11 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 

U.S.C. 98h–2) to consolidate reporting requirements. 

Subtitle C—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

appropriation of $64.3 million from the Armed Forces Retirement 

320 

Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2019 for the operation of the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (sec. 1422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1512 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 

U.S.C. 412) to include as authorized residents of the Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (AFRH): (1) Persons with a service-connected 

disability incurred in the line of duty in the Armed Forces; and (2) 

Certain spouses of residents. The provision would also delineate 

persons ineligible to be residents of the AFRH: (1) Persons discharged or released from military service under other than honorable conditions; and (2) Persons with substance abuse or mental 

health problems, with a limited exception. 

Oversight of health care provided to residents of the Armed 

Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1423) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1513A(c) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 

(24 U.S.C. 413a(c)) to revise the duties of the senior medical advisor to the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) to require the 

senior medical advisor to facilitate and monitor the timely availability to residents of the AFRH such medical, mental health, and 

dental care services as such residents may require at locations 

other than the AFRH and to monitor compliance by the facilities 

of the AFRH with applicable accreditation and health care standards and requirements. 

Modification of authority on acceptance of gifts for the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1424) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph (1) of section 1515(f) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 415(f)) to authorize the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) to accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and use any gift, devise, or bequest, 

either absolutely or in trust, of real or personal property, or any 

income therefrom or other interest therein, for the benefit of the 

AFRH. This provision would allow the AFRH to adopt gift authorities consistent with those of other Federal Government organizations, which are not intended to be capitalized by direct appropriations. 

Relief for residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 

impacted by increase in fees (sec. 1425) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

removal or release of a resident of the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (AFRH) as of September 30, 2018, after that date based solely on the inability of the resident to pay the amount of any increase 

in fees applicable to residents that take effect on October 1, 2018. 

The provision would require the Chief Operating Officer of the 

AFRH to accommodate residents impacted by the fee structure that 

takes effect on October 1, 2018, through hardship relief, additional 

deductions from gross income, and other appropriate actions. 

321 

Limitation on applicability of fee increase for residents of 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1426) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

amount of the fee increase for a resident of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) as of April 9, 2018, of those fees scheduled 

to increase on October 1, 2018, to 50 percent of the fees payable 

by such resident. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Authority for transfer of funds to joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 

Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer $113.0 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, created by 

section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for the operations of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Economical and efficient operation of working capital fund 

activities (sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense to implement workload plans that optimize 

the efficiency of the workforce operating within a working capital 

fund activity and reduce the rate structure. The provision would 

also encourage the working capital fund to perform reimbursable 

work for other entities where appropriate. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment on material shortfalls in United States Forces 

Korea for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

defenses 

The committee is encouraged by the increased chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense efforts by United 

States Forces Korea (USFK). The committee remains concerned 

that there are unknown shortfalls in material needs for the CBRN 

mission on the South Korean peninsula. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment, in coordination with USFK, to submit an assessment, 

no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, that establishes operational requirements and shortfalls for early warning 

systems, decontamination and tactical disablement operations, collective protection equipment, weapons of mass destruction characterization, subterranean operations, and additional areas that the 

Secretary deems appropriate. 

The committee is also concerned that United States Forces Korea 

has not adequately prepared for decontamination efforts or identified possible limitations in the event of a chemical weapon attack. 

Accordingly, the assessment shall include the Department of Defense’s ability to respond to chemical contamination and the limitaVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
322 

tion of water availability on the Korean Peninsula to assist in decontamination. 

Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile 

The committee is strongly supportive of the recent efforts by the 

National Defense Stockpile (NDS) to execute the acquisition of 

strategic and critical materials, expand domestic qualification, and 

recycle military end items in order to reclaim strategic materials 

and rare earth elements. 

Given the committee’s concern that the funds within the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund have been significantly 

depleted and that the fund lacks long-term financial stability without appropriated funds, the committee is strongly encouraged by 

and supportive of the NDS’ recent plan to coordinate a long-term 

strategy to request Transaction Fund appropriations in the future 

years defense program, coupled with the possible reconfiguration of 

existing stockpiles for modern military and strategic requirements. 

(323) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate authorization of appropriations in this section as Overseas Contingency Operations. 

Procurement (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for procurement activities at the levels 

identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4202 of division 

D of this Act. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for operation and maintenance activities 

at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for military personnel activities at the 

levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds 

at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and CounterVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
324 

Drug Activities, Defense-wide at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities 

identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of Overseas Contingency Operations funding authorized for fiscal year 2019 in this 

title to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal 

reprogramming procedures. This transfer authority would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary elsewhere in this 

Act. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$610.1 million for the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization. Additionally, the provision would mandate that none of these 

funds would be available for obligation or expenditure to supply 

training, equipment, supplies, or services to a foreign country before the date that is 15 days after the date on which the Secretary 

of Defense has submitted to the congressional defense committees, 

the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a notice 

detailing the relevant arrangement. 

Budget Items 

Tomahawk 

The budget request did not include funding for line number 3 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for Tomahawk missiles. 

On April 13, 2018, the United States fired 69 Tomahawk missiles 

into Syria. The committee recommends procuring Tomahawk missiles to replenish the Navy’s inventory of Tomahawks to account for 

the missiles used. 

325 

Thus, the committee recommends an increase of $82.8 million to 

line number 3 of WPN OCO to procure 69 Tomahawk missiles. 

Ammunition less than $5 million 

The budget request included $211.9 million for Navy Ammuni- tion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), of which $2.2 million 

was for LI 15, Ammunition Less than $5 million. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million to Navy Ammunition OCO, LI 15 due to excess to need. 

JASSM–ER 

The budget request included $61.6 million in line number 2 of 

Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). 

On April 13, 2018, the United States fired 19 JASSMs in Syria. 

The JASSM is no longer in production and has been replaced with 

a more capable variant, the Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missiles Extended Range (JASSM–ER). The committee recommends procuring 

JASSM–ERs to replenish the Air Force’s inventory to account for 

the JASSMs used. 

The committee recommends an increase of $22.8 million to line 

number 2 of MPAF OCO to procure 19 JASSM–ERs. 

Items of Special Interest 

Cargo inspections to counter vehicle borne Improvised Explosive Device (IED) threats 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of the Army 

is testing and planning to deploy new passive cargo inspection 

technologies to address a joint urgent operational need to counter 

Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) threats. This 

disruptive technology, which utilizes naturally occurring cosmic ray 

muons and electrons, identifies shielded and unshielded nuclear 

and radioactive materials; detects smuggled contraband, including 

weapons, bomb-making materials, and illicit goods; and is proven 

safe for humans, animals, and food products. 

The committee encourages the Army to continue with the current 

testing program and supports efforts to deploy the system at a 

major U.S. military facility. Further, the committee requests a 

briefing 60 days after the enactment of this Act on the potential 

future deployments of these next generation inspection technologies 

inside and outside the continental United States. The briefing, 

which may be provided in a classified setting, shall include an assessment of current cargo inspection protocols and requirement 

gaps that may exist. 

(327) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Space Activities 

Modifications to Space Rapid Capabilities Office (sec. 1601) 

The committee recommends a provision to clarify and update the 

structure of the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (Space RCO). 

The committee notes that section 1601 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) re-designates the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office as the 

Space RCO. Given the challenges the committee had in persuading 

the Department of Defense to recognize the need for responsive 

space since the inception of the ORS Office, mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (Public Law 112–239), 

the committee is encouraged by the enthusiasm expressed by the 

Commander, Air Force Space Command and the other Air Force 

senior leadership for the Space RCO. 

Space warfighting policy and review of space capabilities 

(sec. 1602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a space warfighting policy not later 

than March 29, 2019. The provision would also direct the Secretary 

of Defense to conduct a review relating to the national security 

space enterprise that evaluates: (1) The resiliency of the national 

security space enterprise with respect to a conflict; (2) The ability 

of the national security space enterprise to attribute an attack on 

a space system in a timely manner; (3) The ability of the United 

States to resolve a conflict in space and determine the material 

means by which such a conflict may be resolved; (4) The ability of 

the national security space enterprise to defend against, defeat, 

and deter aggressive behavior in space; (5) The effectiveness and 

efficiency of the national security space enterprise to rapidly research, develop, acquire, and deploy space capabilities and capacities; (6) The current organizational structure of the national security space enterprise with respect to roles, responsibilities, and authorities; (7) Any emerging space threat the Deputy Secretary expects the United States to confront over the next 10 years; and (8) 

Any other matters that the Deputy Secretary considers appropriate. 

Report on enhancements to the Global Positioning System 

Operational Control Segment (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional 

defense committees no later than 1 year after the enactment of this 

328 

Act with an interim briefing no later than March 15, 2019, on potential further enhancements to the Operational Control Segment 

for the Global Positioning System to achieve capabilities similar to 

the Next Generation Operational Control Segment, including cyber 

security enhancements and other incremental capabilities. The report would also include the cost and schedule for such additional 

capabilities and enhancements. 

Streamline of commercial space launch operations (sec. 

1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1617 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1106; 51 U.S.C. 50918 note) to 

prohibit the Secretary of Defense’s imposition of a requirement in 

procurement germane to national security space launch duplicative 

of any requirement imposed by the Secretary of Transportation 

under chapter 509 of title 10, United States Code. The provision 

would also include a waiver. 

Reusable launch vehicles (sec. 1605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out the policy set forth in section 

2273 of title 10, United States Code, that regarding assured access 

to space for national security payloads, with a strategy that includes reusable launch systems. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to submit to the 

congressional defense committees, no less than 60 days prior to the 

issuance of the solicitation for procurement of space launch services, a determination as to: whether launch vehicles using previously flown components could meet mission requirements, whether services utilizing reusable launch vehicles are eligible for award, 

and, if not, a justification for this ineligibility. 

Review of and report on activities of International Space 

Station (sec. 1606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to complete a review of each program, activity, and future technology research 

project of the Department of Defense being carried out on the 

International Space Station and submit that review to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 

Armed Services, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives. 

329 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 

Activities 

Framework on governance, mission management, 

resourcing, and effective oversight of Department of Defense combat support agencies that are also elements of 

the intelligence community (sec. 1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and codify in policy a framework 

and supporting processes within the Department of Defense to ensure that the missions, roles, and functions of the Combat Support 

Agencies of the Department of Defense that are also elements of 

the Intelligence Community, and other intelligence components of 

the Department, are appropriately balanced and resourced. 

Subtitle C—Cyberspace-Related Matters 

Part I—Cyberspace Generally 

Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, 

cyber warfare, and cyber deterrence (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

policy of the United States with respect to matters pertaining to 

cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare. 

The committee has long expressed its concern with the lack of an 

effective strategy and policy for addressing cyber threats and cyber 

deterrence. The National Defense Authorization Act has included 

numerous provisions over the past few years that directed the executive branch to define and develop the policies and strategies necessary to improve the structure, capability, roles, and responsibilities of our national cyber efforts. The committee has also placed 

a strong emphasis on the need for developing a comprehensive 

cyber deterrence strategy. Unfortunately, the committee believes 

the responses to those requests have been insufficient hitherto and 

incommensurate with the threat we face in the cyber domain. 

Affirming the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities and operations in cyberspace 

(sec. 1622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would affirm the authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities 

and operations in cyberspace, including clandestine military activities and operations, to defend the United States, its allies, and its 

interests, in anticipation of and in response to malicious cyber activities carried out against the United States or a United States 

person by a foreign power. The provision would affirm that this authority includes the conduct of military activities or operations in 

cyberspace short of war and in areas outside of named areas of conflict for the purpose of preparation of the environment, adversary 

influence, force protection, deterrence of hostilities, and counterterrorism operations involving the Armed Forces of the United States. 

The provision would also make clear that clandestine military activities or operations in cyberspace are traditional military activiVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
330 

ties for the purposes of section 503(e)(2) of the National Security 

Act of 1947 (Public Law 80–253). 

The committee understands that the authors of the National Security Act used the term ‘‘traditional military activities’’ to exempt 

standard military operations and activities from the Act’s stringent 

reporting requirements, designed for the intelligence community’s 

covert action. The authors did not anticipate the cyber domain or 

the nature of modern cyber conflict and therefore could not establish whether the military’s activities in cyberspace qualify as such 

traditional military activities. As a result, there is some debate 

across the executive branch today as to whether sufficient precedent exists to determine that clandestine military activities in 

cyberspace should qualify as traditional military activities. This 

interagency disagreement has limited the Department of Defense’s 

ability to conduct these necessary operations, novel only in that 

they occur in the cyber domain. 

The committee believes that clandestine military activities in 

cyberspace are not just traditional military activities but essential 

to the military effectiveness of the Armed Forces in modern warfare. The committee asserts that persistent cyber operations in adversary networks, or ‘‘red space,’’ are critical for the development 

of military and deterrence targets. As Lieutenant General Paul 

Nakasone stated on February 27, 2018, in his response to the committee’s advance policy questions for his nomination to be the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command and the Director of the National Security Agency, ‘‘to be operationally effective in cyberspace, U.S. 

forces must have the ability to conduct a range of preparatory activities, which may include gaining clandestine access to operationally relevant cyber systems or networks.’’ The committee is concerned that, without the ability to identify, surveil, and pre-position 

tools on targets in peacetime, the military’s ability to provide options to military planners and the President during wartime will 

be severely limited. 

Active defense and surveillance against Russian Federation 

attacks in cyberspace (sec. 1623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

National Command Authority to direct the Commander, U.S. Cyber 

Command (CYBERCOM), to take appropriate and proportional action through cyberspace to disrupt, defeat, and deter systematic 

and ongoing attacks by the Russian Federation in cyberspace. The 

provision would require the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, to 

provide at least quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees in any year in which such actions are undertaken. 

The provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct, through the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, surveillance in networks outside the United States of personnel and organizations engaged at the behest or in support of the Russian Federation in: (1) Stealing and releasing confidential information from 

U.S. persons campaigning for public office or organizations supporting such campaigns; (2) Generating and planting information 

and narratives in U.S. social media and other media intended to 

mislead, sharpen social and political conflicts, or otherwise manipulate perceptions and opinions of American citizens; (3) Creating 

331 

networks of subverted computers and false accounts on social 

media platforms for the purpose of spreading and amplifying such 

information and narratives; and (4) Planning and developing capabilities to attack U.S. critical infrastructure with the intent to 

cause casualties among U.S. persons or persons of allies of the 

United States, significant damage to private or public property, significant economic disruption, an effect, individually or in aggregate, 

comparable to that of an armed attack or one that imperils a vital 

national security interest of the United States, or significant disruption of the normal functioning of the United States democratic 

society or government, including attacks against or incidents involving critical infrastructure that could damage systems used to 

provide key services to the public or government. 

The provision would direct the Secretary of Defense, either directly or in coordination with other Federal agencies and departments, and using the results of the surveillance conducted through 

CYBERCOM, to work with social media companies on a voluntary 

basis to assist those companies in identifying accounts created by 

personnel and organizations engaged at the behest or in support of 

the Russian Federation and that violate the companies’ terms of 

service. The provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to 

grant security clearances to individuals of media companies as the 

Secretary deems necessary and appropriate for this purpose. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit an annual report to the Congress on the scope and intensity 

of Russian Federation information operations and attacks through 

cyberspace against the U.S. government and the American people, 

as observed by the Cyber Mission Forces of CYBERCOM and the 

National Security Agency. 

Through open and closed hearings with Department of Defense 

officials and independent experts, the committee received testimony 

on the feasibility and appropriateness of utilizing the Cyber Mission Forces assigned to CYBERCOM, operating outside the United 

States, to detect, identify, track, and actively disrupt the activities 

of operators working on behalf of the Russian Federation to conduct influence operations in the United States. The committee 

heard testimony establishing that the Russian Federation seeks to 

achieve strategic objectives in conducting such operations and concludes that the threat posed by such operations is significant 

enough to require active countervailing actions. These illegal operations, to date, though intended to achieve strategic effects, are 

generally assessed to fall into the category of ‘‘grey zone conflict,’’ 

below the level of an armed attack. The committee believes that 

disrupting them in proportionate self-defense through traditional 

military activities in cyberspace is likewise not an armed attack 

nor escalatory. The committee urges the National Command Authority to act on this authorization. 

Reorganization and consolidation of certain cyber provisions (sec. 1624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend part 

I of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, by transferring sections 130g, 130j, and 130k, currently of chapter 13, to chapter 19. 

This reorganization would codify these sections, governing some of 

332 

the Department of Defense’s responsibilities and reporting requirements concerning cyberspace, under ‘‘Cyber Matters’’ rather than 

‘‘General Powers and Functions.’’ 

Designation of official for matters relating to integrating cybersecurity and industrial control systems within the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1625) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to designate one official as responsible for the 

integration of cybersecurity and industrial control systems within 

the Department of Defense, to include the development of Department-wide standards for integration of industrial control systems 

and the potential applicability of frameworks set forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and similar organizations. 

The committee is concerned that no one individual is responsible 

for defining industrial control system cybersecurity standards within the Department of Defense and that the lack of such an individual has impeded holistic cybersecurity efforts across the Department and its critical infrastructure. 

Assistance for small manufacturers in the defense industrial 

supply chain on matters relating to cybersecurity (sec. 

1626) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief Information Officer 

and Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, to 

improve awareness of cybersecurity threats among small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the defense industrial supply chain. 

Measures pursuant to this requirement would include: (1) Energetic outreach to the relevant businesses critical to the industrial 

base and supply chain needs of the Department of Defense (DOD); 

(2) The development of cybersecurity self-assessments to enhance 

firms’ understanding of network vulnerabilities and the Department’s cybersecurity standards; (3) The transfer of appropriate cybersecurity technology, threat information, and techniques developed in the DOD to these businesses; and (4) The establishment of 

a cyber counseling certification program, or approval of a similar 

extant program, to certify small- and medium-sized business professionals and other relevant acquisition staff within the DOD to 

provide cyber planning assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers. 

The committee is concerned that small- and medium-sized manufacturers of defense or defense-related systems are unaware of or 

unable to meet the cybersecurity standards of the DOD; they therefore represent a potential vulnerability to DOD systems and assets. 

The committee believes that, to avoid exclusion of small- and medium-sized manufacturers from the acquisition process, the Department should be proactive in its communication to and cooperation 

with these businesses in ensuring that they can meet DOD standards. The committee also believes that the Department should consider using extant resources and capacities in this space, including 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing 

333 

Extension Partnership Program and the National Network of Manufacturing Institutes. 

Modification of acquisition authority of the Commander of 

United States Cyber Command (sec. 1627) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) by extending the acquisition authority 

established in that section for the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command. The section initially limited the Commander’s obligation and 

expenditure germane to his acquisition authority to $75.0 million 

from fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2021, at which point the 

authority would sunset. This provision would extend that authority 

through fiscal year 2025 and raise the limit on obligation and expenditure to $250.0 million. 

Email and Internet website security and authentication 

(sec. 1628) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement the requirements of the Binding 

Operational Directive (BOD) 18–01, issued by the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on October 16, 2017. This 

BOD was modeled on actions directed by the United Kingdom’s National Cybersecurity Center to enhance email security and authentication and web security. The Department of Defense (DOD) as a 

rule is exempt from DHS BODs, on the grounds that the DOD’s security posture is superior to that of the rest of the government. In 

this case, however, the DHS BOD makes eminent sense for DOD 

and should be adopted as soon as possible. 

The actions required specifically include: (1) The adoption of the 

START Transport Layer Security (STARTTLS) protocol for 

encryption; (2) Enforcement of Sender Policy Framework (SPF), Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM), and Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) for email authentication; and (3) Implementation of Hypertext Transfer Protocol 

Strict Transport Security (HSTS). 

These simple measures would provide enormous cybersecurity 

benefits for the Department and would bring the Department in 

line with current accepted standards. 

The provision would also require the Chief Information Officer of 

the Department of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the issuance of a DHS BOD germane 

to cybersecurity as to whether the Department plans to comply 

with the directive or how the Department plans to meet the security objectives of the directive. 

Matters pertaining to the Sharkseer cybersecurity programs 

(sec. 1629) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer the Sharkseer cybersecurity program from the National Security Agency (NSA) to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). In executing this transfer, the 

Secretary would be required to also transfer all funding and, as 

needed, personnel for the program. The provision would fence 10 

334 

percent of the funding available for obligation in fiscal year 2019 

and subsequent years for NSA’s Information Systems Security Program, PE 33140G, until the Principal Cyber Advisor certifies to the 

congressional defense committees that the operations and maintenance funding for the Sharkseer program for fiscal year 2019 and 

the subsequent fiscal years of the current future years defense program are available or programmed. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

adopt the Sharkseer ‘‘break and inspect’’ decryption capability as 

the enterprise solution in satisfaction of the requirement in section 

1636 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291). In executing this requirement, the provision would require 

the Secretary to integrate the Sharkseer break and inspect subsystem with the Department of Defense’s public key infrastructure. 

The provision would require the Secretary, by October 1, 2020, 

to enable the Sharkseer system and computer network defense 

service providers to automatically identify and locate hosts and 

endpoints that received or sent malware detected by Sharkseer or 

other network perimeter defense systems for remediation. 

The committee notes that the Sharkseer system provides an enterprise capability for ‘‘sandboxing as a service,’’ meaning that it 

has the capacity to receive and run in a virtual host any suspicious 

samples isolated by any component in the Department of Defense 

(DOD). Meanwhile, other DOD organizations are pursuing redundant capabilities. This provision would require the termination of 

alternative sandbox-as-a-service initiatives and designation of 

Sharkseer for that purpose by October 1, 2020. Finally, the provision would authorize an increase of $20.0 mil- lion to the $790.2 million requested for the Defense Information 

Systems Agency in Procurement, Defense-wide. The committee recommends this additional authorization to increase the bandwidth 

of the Sharkseer system to match the increased bandwidth of the 

Internet Access Points that the Sharkseer system must monitor. 

Pilot program on modeling and simulation in support of 

military homeland defense operations in connection 

with cyber attacks on critical infrastructure (sec. 1630) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global 

Security to carry out a pilot program on modeling and simulation 

in support of military homeland defense operations through U.S. 

Northern Command and U.S. Cyber Command. The pilot program 

would be based on the results and lessons learned from ongoing research exercises involving local government, industry, and military 

responses to combined natural disasters and cyber attacks on critical infrastructure. The ongoing research exercises, known as ‘‘Jack 

Voltaic 1.0’’ and ‘‘Jack Voltaic 2.0,’’ are conducted by the Army 

Cyber Institute, industry partners, and the cities of New York and 

Houston. 

In general, the objective of such a pilot program would be the development of risk analysis methodologies and the application of advanced commercial simulation and modeling capabilities, based on 

hyperscale cloud computing technology and artificial intelligence/ 

335 

machine learning technology, for use by active and reserve component military forces, industry, and civil government organizations, 

to: (1) Assess defense critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and 

interdependencies to improve military resilience; (2) Determine the 

likely effectiveness of potential cyber attacks and the countermeasures, tactics, and tools used in responding to such attacks; (3) 

Train personnel in incident response; (4) Conduct complex and 

large scale exercises and test scenarios; and (5) Foster collaboration 

and learning between and among departments and agencies of the 

Federal government, State and local government, military forces, 

and private entities responsible for critical infrastructure. The pilot 

would also assist in the development and demonstration of the 

foundations for a potential program of record for a shared, high-fidelity, interactive, and affordable cloud-based modeling and simulation of critical infrastructure systems and incident response that 

can simulate complex cyber and physical disruptions on local, 

State, regional, and national scales. 

The provision would require the Assistant Secretary to provide a 

report on the pilot program coincident with the submission of the 

President’s fiscal year 2020 budget request. The report should include: (1) A description of the exercises conducted under the ‘‘Jack 

Voltaic’’ series and the pilot program; (2) An inventory of the cybersecurity units of the National Guard and Reserves that could be 

shared among the States under mutual assistance compacts; (3) A 

description of the risk analysis methodologies and modeling and 

simulation capabilities developed and demonstrated in the pilot, together with an assessment of the potential future growth of commercial technology; (4) Recommendations regarding the establishment of a program of record for the Department of Defense for the 

further development and sustainment of advanced, large-scale modeling and simulation on modern cloud infrastructure of cyber warfare involving critical infrastructure; (5) Lessons learned from the 

application of novel risk analysis methodologies and large-scale 

modeling and simulation regarding vulnerabilities, required capabilities, and reconfigured force structure, coordination practices, 

and policy; and (6) Planned steps for implementing these lessons. 

The budget request included $10.2 billion in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $28.5 million 

was for PE 62308A Advanced Concepts and Simulation. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $38.5 

million, in RDT&E Army, PE 62308A, for the pilot program on 

modeling and simulation. 

Security product integration framework (sec. 1631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), the Chief Information Officer (CIO), 

and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, to select a network or 

network segment and associated computer network defense service 

provider to conduct a demonstration and evaluation of one or more 

existing security product integration frameworks, including 

through modification of network security systems to enable such 

systems to ingest, publish, subscribe, tip and cue, and request information or services from each other. 

336 

The provision also includes congressional findings that: (1) The 

Department of Defense (DOD) requires a standard, enterprise-wide 

‘‘security product integration framework’’ (SPIF) that provides machine-to-machine data exchange architecture and protocol to 

achieve interoperability among and orchestration of all the cybersecurity tools, applications, systems, and services deployed across 

DOD networks; (2) Information security products and services must 

be engineered not only to connect to this framework but also to 

consume and act on the information that can be provided and to 

prompt other actions by other devices and applications; and (3) 

Candidate SPIFs would ideally be non-proprietary or designed as 

a modular open system. 

The committee directs that the PCA, CIO, and Commander, U.S. 

Cyber Command: (1) Complete this demonstration and evaluation 

by October 1, 2019; (2) Promptly report their findings and recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for consideration 

of funding for follow-on activities in preparation of the budget request for fiscal year 2020; and (3) Provide a briefing on the results 

to the congressional defense committees on request. 

Report on enhancement of software security for critical systems (sec. 1632) 

Consistent with and pursuant to section 1647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), 

section 1650 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), and section 1640 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

91), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and 

Global Security, who serves as the Principal Cyber Advisor, and 

the Chief Information Officer shall conduct a technical and costbenefit study of the merits of applying, to the vulnerability assessment and remediation of nuclear systems and nuclear command 

and control, a critical subset of conventional power projection capabilities, cyber command and control, and defense critical infrastructure: (1) Technology developed and used by Department of Defense 

combat support agencies to discover flaws and weaknesses in software code by inputting immense quantities of pseudo-random data, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘fuzz,’’ to identify inputs that cause the 

software to fail; (2) Software fuzzing-as-a-service in a commercial 

cloud that could be used to continuously ‘‘fuzz’’ critically important 

software repositories used by the Department of Defense to make 

them more secure and stable by combining modern fuzzing techniques with scalable distributed execution; (3) Formal programming and protocol language for software code development and 

other methods and tools developed under the High Assurance 

Cyber Military Systems program of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency; and (4) The binary analysis and symbolic execution software security tools developed under the Cyber Grand Challenge program of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

to discover flaws and weaknesses in software by inputting mathematically generated data based on automated analysis of code and 

providing proof of, and patches to, the identified flaws. 

The Principal Cyber Advisor and the Chief Information Officer 

shall provide a report to the congressional defense committees on 

337 

the results of the study, and their recommendations for further action, no later than March 1, 2019. 

Comply to connect and cybersecurity scorecard (sec. 1633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of funds for the so-called Cybersecurity 

Scorecard after October 1, 2019, unless the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is implementing by that date a funded program pursuant to 

section 1653 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to fulfill the requirements established by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Commander, 

U.S. Cyber Command in the Information Security Continuous Monitoring Strategy, Comply-to-Connect Strategy, Enterprise Patch 

Management Service Strategy and Concept of Operations, and User 

Activity Monitoring Strategy. 

The provision would also require the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to submit a report to the congressional defense committees: (1) Comparing the current capabilities 

of the DOD to the requirements established by the CIO and the 

Commander, U.S. Cyber Command pursuant to section 1653 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328) for the Information Security Continuous Monitoring 

Strategy, Comply-to-Connect Strategy, Enterprise Patch Management Service Strategy and Concept of Operations, and User Activity Monitoring Strategy; and (2) The capabilities deployed by the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the General Services 

Administration under the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation 

Program across the non-DOD Federal agencies and departments. 

The provision would also require the CIO, the Principal Cyber 

Advisor (PCA), the Director of Operations of the Joint Staff, and 

the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command to establish risk thresholds 

for systems and network operations that, when exceeded, would 

trigger heightened security measures. 

Finally, the provision would require, not later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act, the CIO and the PCA to develop 

a plan to implement an enterprise governance, risk, and compliance platform and process similar to those adopted by leading commercial entities for information and operational technology security. 

The Congress has in vain mandated multiple times in legislation 

that the DOD correct its inability to account for software licenses 

in use across the Department. Likewise, the Congress has mandated the development and implementation of a strategy for automated comply-to-connect and continuous monitoring capabilities. 

The committee notes that budget justification materials for the 

President’s fiscal year 2019 request show that the CIO and the 

Commander, U.S. Cyber Command developed the required strategy, implementation plans, and funding proposal but that the proposal was rejected by the CAPE in the issue-paper cycle. Meanwhile, DOD components are in a constant scramble to produce 

through manual data calls the regular cybersecurity scorecard for 

the Secretary of Defense, but this scorecard is neither up-to-date 

nor accurate, as the Department has no method for detecting the 

large number of unknown devices and unaccounted for software inVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
338 

stances running on its networks. That unknown software on unknown devices represents a substantial risk, in addition to the risk 

posed by cumbersome, rigid, and manually managed patching and 

access procedures. 

The committee notes that commercial products exist to solve 

these serious problems and that the DHS is already fielding such 

capabilities in protection of the civil departments and agencies. 

Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

Cyberspace Solarium Commission, tasked with developing a strategic approach to protecting and advancing the United States’ advantages in cyberspace. The Commission would weigh the benefits 

and costs of various strategic frameworks (e.g., deterrence, normsbased regimes, and cyber persistence), evaluate the sufficiency of 

the current allocation of resources in cyberspace, and consider potential realignments in governmental structure and authorities. 

The Commission would comprise 13 members, including the 

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and 

10 members chosen by the majority and minority parties of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. The latter would be either members of Congress or cybersecurity and national security 

experts from the public and private sectors. The Commission would 

be co-chaired by a member of the Republican Party and a member 

of the Democratic Party. The Commission would have broad authorities to hold hearings, request information from government 

entities, subpoena witnesses, and contract out taskings. 

Not later than September 1, 2019, the Commission would submit 

a report detailing its findings to the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. Not later than 60 days after receipt of the 

Commission’s report, the Director of National Intelligence and the 

Secretary of Defense would both submit to the congressional defense and intelligence committees their assessments of the report 

and final recommendations. 

The committee is aware that a nascent literature on cybersecurity strategy has emerged, encompassing the views and theories of 

various entities across State and Federal government, the private 

sector, and academia. Practitioners have begun to appreciate this 

body of thought and leverage these resources in shaping the Nation’s cybersecurity posture. The committee is enthusiastic about 

this decentralized initiative but believes that the establishment of 

the Cyber Solarium Commission, by formalizing this utilization 

process, would only improve the government’s cybersecurity posture and help to preserve the United States’ extant advantages. 

In 1953, President Eisenhower convened the original Project Solarium as a resource to inform the United States’ containment 

strategy. The project featured three teams, with two advocating differing degrees of containment and one advancing a strategy of rollback. This direct comparison illuminated for the Eisenhower administration a number of implications and contingencies associated 

with containment, thus refining its successful implementation of 

339 

containment in NSC 162/2, an update on the Truman administration’s NSC 68. The committee sees a great deal of value in such 

an approach, especially as it might be applied to one of the great 

challenges of our time: preserving the United States’ interests and 

advantages in cyberspace. 

Program to establish cyber institutes at institutions of higher learning (sec. 1635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a Cyber Institute at any college 

or university that hosts a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, with special consideration for the Senior Military Colleges. 

The committee recognizes the importance of institutions of higher 

learning in the education and development of the cyber workforce 

and believes that these institutions offer an avenue to accelerate 

and focus the development of foundational expertise in critical 

cyber operations skills for future military and civilian leaders. The 

committee commends the Department on its continued investment 

in cyber education and training as a cornerstone of our national security. 

The committee believes that the Department’s future focus on 

cyber education and training should extend to other institutions of 

higher learning that have Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs in order to develop the cyber workforce across the active and 

components. The Senior Military Colleges offer robust cyber programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, provide a focus 

on leadership development, and commission a large portion of officers across the active, reserve, and National Guard components. 

Establishment of Cybersecurity for Defense Industrial Base 

Manufacturing Activity (sec. 1636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to, in consultation with the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, establish an activity to assess and 

strengthen the cybersecurity resiliency of the defense industrial 

base in the United States, including the development of cybersecurity test capabilities, development of training regimes, integration 

of defense industrial base cybersecurity into research and development roadmaps and threat assessments, and the dissemination of 

relevant capabilities to address threats to the defense industrial 

base. 

Part II—Mitigation of Risks Posed by Providers of Information Technology with Obligations to Foreign Governments 

Definitions (sec. 1637) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

definitions for subsequent provisions relating to the establishment 

of a program to mitigate the risks derivative of foreign governments’ code review of information technology products used by the 

Department of Defense. 

340 

Identification of countries of concern regarding cybersecurity (sec. 1638) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to create a prioritized list of countries of concern related to cybersecurity based on their governments’ hostility, 

intelligence activity, criminal activity, and willingness and ability 

to disrupt the U.S. government’s supply chain. 

Mitigation of risks to national security posed by providers 

of information technology products and services who 

have obligations to foreign governments (sec. 1639) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense’s use of any information technology, cybersecurity, industrial control system, weapons system, or computer 

antivirus system unless the provider discloses to the Secretary of 

Defense: (1) whether it has allowed a foreign government to review 

or access a product custom-developed for the Department of Defense or is under any obligation to provide a foreign person or government with access or review of such a product; (2) whether it has 

allowed a government listed in the report required by section 1638 

of this Act to review or access the source code of a product, system, 

or service that the Department is using or intends to use or is 

under any obligation to do so; and (3) whether it holds or has 

sought a license pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations under subchapter C of chapter VII of title 15, Code of Federal 

Regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations under 

subchapter M of chapter I of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, 

or successor regulations, for information technology products, components, software, or services. 

The provision would further require that a procurement contract 

for the covered products include a clause requiring that, if the provider becomes aware of any additional information germane to 

these requirements, this information be disclosed during the period 

of the contract. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 

take measures to mitigate the risks gleaned from and associated 

with these disclosures, including conditioning in contracts and limitations of use of certain products. 

Establishment of registry of disclosures (sec. 1640) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a registry containing the information on foreign governments required by section 1638 of this Act 

and on providers of information technology products and services 

required by section 1639 of this Act. The provision would also require the Secretary to make available this information to any agency conducting a procurement pursuant to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations and to 

submit a report to the relevant congressional committees on the 

scope of acquisition for and mitigation agreements relevant to the 

Department of Defense’s acquisition of products for which a disclosure has been made under section 1639 of this Act. 

341 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces 

Oversight and management of the command, control, and 

communications system for the national leadership of 

the United States (sec. 1641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would centralize 

and clarify responsibility for national leadership command, control, 

and communications systems by requiring the Secretary of Defense 

to designate a single individual responsible for strategic portfolio 

management of these and related programs. The provision would 

also modify the structure of the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System 

to streamline its functions and make the single individual designated by the Secretary the sole Chair. 

The committee commends the Secretary for his commitment to 

reforming the governance of nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) and has great respect for the dedication of the 

small group of knowledgeable individuals throughout the Department of Defense who have been deeply involved in this effort. The 

NC3 enterprise is one of the most complex and distributed systems 

in the Department, and the committee agrees that such an important system cannot effectively be managed by a council. The committee believes that a single individual should be responsible, and 

also accountable, for the successful management of the NC3 enterprise, including synchronization of programs across the Air Force, 

Navy, and other organizations, advocacy for adequate budgets and 

personnel in the Services, and timely integration of new systems 

into the ongoing nuclear triad modernization programs. The individual should also have the authorities required to be effective in 

these roles and a full-time staff to support him or her. 

Modification to requirement for conventional long-range 

standoff weapon (sec. 1642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Air 

Force to retire the conventionally-armed AGM–86C prior to achieving initial operating capability for a conventionally-armed variant 

of the long-range standoff weapon (LRSO). The provision would instead require the Air Force to begin procurement and fielding of a 

conventionally-armed LRSO not more than 5 years after the nuclear LRSO completes initial operational test and evaluation. 

Exchange program for nuclear weapons program employees 

(sec. 1643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Administrator 

of the National Nuclear Security Administration to jointly establish 

a program to exchange civilian and military personnel on a temporary basis between the offices of the Department of Defense 

working on nuclear weapons policy, production, and force structure 

issues and the Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs in the National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of Energy. The program would provide for the exchange 

of between 5 and 10 civilian and military personnel for terms of 1 

to 2 years. The provision would require the Chairman and the AdVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
342 

ministrator to provide interim guidance to the congressional defense committees within 90 days of the date of enactment of this 

Act and to implement such guidance within 180 days of the date 

of enactment. 

The committee intends for this program to foster working-level 

relationships between personnel working on nuclear weapons programs in both Departments. The committee firmly believes that 

frequent and robust communication between the relevant offices, as 

well as broadening experience for the personnel involved, would result in more effective implementation of nuclear weapons programs 

in the medium- and long-term. 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental 

ballistic missile fuzes (sec. 1644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Air 

Force the authority to expend funds appropriated for fiscal year 

2019 to buy certain intercontinental ballistic missile fuze parts as 

part of the effort to replace the Mk21 fuze. 

The committee notes that this collaborative effort with the Navy 

has enabled both Services to leverage commonality between the 

intercontinental ballistic missile and sea-launched ballistic missile 

fuze components. Both Services have worked with Sandia National 

Laboratories to perform fuze design and development, which has 

ensured maximum use of common components, subassemblies, and 

technologies. 

The committee also understands that this authority has allowed 

the Air Force to execute life-of-type buys with the Navy for fiscal 

years 2015 through 2019, at an estimated savings of $600.0 million 

to the Air Force. The committee encourages the Navy and the Air 

Force to continue to seek areas of commonality between missile 

programs and leverage those to create efficiencies. 

Plan to train officers in nuclear command, control, and communications (sec. 1645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air 

Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, to develop a plan to train, educate, manage, and 

track field-grade military officers in nuclear command, control, and 

communications (NC3). The provision would require the Secretary 

of Defense to submit the plan to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act. 

The committee is aware that managing the NC3 enterprise is one 

of the most complex and vital missions of the U.S. military and requires operational, technical, and acquisition expertise. The committee does not believe that incidental knowledge of NC3 gained 

through operation of a nuclear weapons system like a nuclear-capable bomber or intercontinental ballistic missile is sufficient to constitute NC3 expertise. The committee also understands that the 

Services do not provide sufficient opportunities for explicit training 

or education on the subject and do not deliberately develop officers 

who possess desired expertise to be effective leaders in this complex mission area. The committee believes that a carefully-managed cohort of officers trained or educated in the NC3 enterprise 

343 

as a whole will be required to build and maintain the future enterprise. 

The committee does not intend to prejudge the content of the 

plan and encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine options 

including modifying or creating entirely new officer career fields, 

developing specialized joint professional military education, designating specific NC3 billets, modifying promotion timelines and opportunities, and crafting exchanges among various elements of the 

NC3 mission. 

Plan for alignment of acquisition of warhead life extension 

programs and delivery vehicles for such warheads (sec. 

1646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to provide a proposal to better align acquisition of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) warhead life extension programs with Department of Defense (DOD) nuclear weapons delivery vehicle programs. 

The plan would be due no later than February 15, 2019. 

The committee is concerned about challenges with synchronization between NNSA and DOD acquisition programs, such as the 

B61–12 life extension with the Tail-Kit Assembly and the W80–4 

life extension with the Long-Range Standoff weapon. As the nuclear modernization program continues and with the recommendations of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, opportunities to better 

align DOD and NNSA programs-such as the analysis of alternatives regarding a sea-launched cruise missile and the W78 warhead replacement, both beginning this year-will increase in number 

and salience. The committee believes that poor synchronization 

could disrupt these and other elements of the nuclear modernization program, resulting in unacceptable delays in delivery. 

The committee encourages the Chairman of the NWC to seek 

input from all stakeholders in the formation of this plan, including 

the other members of the NWC, the Navy, the Air Force, and the 

Deputy Administrator of the NNSA for Defense Programs—as well 

as the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for Acquisition and Nuclear, 

Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs within the Chairman’s 

own office. The committee further encourages the Chairman to consider a wide range of options within the proposal, including improvements to and standardization of mechanisms that have been 

successful for existing programs and changes in acquisition authorities or processes for the NNSA and the DOD. The committee 

hopes to receive the plan in time to consider any proposal requiring 

legislative action in the defense authorization for fiscal year 2020. 

Extension of annual report on plan for the nuclear weapons 

stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, nuclear weapons 

delivery systems, and nuclear weapons command and 

control system (sec. 1647) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the reporting requirement in section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), as 

amended, by 5 years, through fiscal year 2024. 

344 

Prohibition on use of funds for activities to modify United 

States aircraft to implement Open Skies Treaty (sec. 

1648) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of any funds for fiscal year 2019 for research, development, test, and engineering, Air Force, or aircraft 

procurement, Air Force, for the digital visual imaging system to 

modify U.S. aircraft for the purpose of implementing the Open 

Skies Treaty until the President and the Secretary of Defense submit the two certifications described in section 1235(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 

115–91). 

Sense of Senate on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1649) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a series 

of findings and state the sense of the Senate on the 2018 Nuclear 

Posture Review. 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs 

Extension of prohibition relating to missile defense information and systems (sec. 1651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 130h(e) of title 10, United States Code, by striking ‘‘January 

1, 2019,’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2021,’’ to extend the limitations 

on providing certain sensitive missile defense information to the 

Russian Federation and integrating missile defense systems of the 

Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China into U.S. 

missile defense systems. 

Multiyear procurement authority for Standard Missile–3 IB 

guided missiles (sec. 1652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority for the Secretary of Defense to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of up to 204 Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) 

Block IB guided missiles for fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 

2023 program years, with advance procurement for economic order 

quantities also beginning in fiscal year 2019 pending the Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation confirmation of the 

Secretary of the Navy’s preliminary findings as required in subsection a of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. 

The SM–3 Block IB program is a core element of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program and is approved through the current 

future years defense program. This provision would provide the following benefits: (1) Generate cost savings compared to annual procurement cost estimates; (2) Provide stable production of SM–3 

Block IBs; (3) Provide a long-term commitment to the low-density 

aerospace industrial base that stabilizes aerospace employment levels; (4) Provide an incentive for industry capital investment for productivity improvements that would benefit several Department of 

Defense missile programs; and (5) Reduce disruptions in vendor delivery schedules. 

345 

Extension of requirement for reports on unfunded priorities 

of Missile Defense Agency (sec. 1653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1696 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328), removing the sunset requirement for 

the unfunded priorities list of the Missile Defense Agency. 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative missile defense program co-development and 

co-production (sec. 1654) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize not more than $70.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to provide 

to the Government of Israel to procure components for the Iron 

Dome short-range rocket defense system through co-production of 

such components in the United States. Before disbursing the funding for Iron Dome to the Government of Israel, the Director of the 

Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must certify that the March 5, 2014, bilateral international agreement concerning Iron Dome, as amended, is being implemented. The provision would also authorize $50.0 million for the Missile 

Defense Agency to provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the David’s Sling Weapon System and $80.0 million for 

the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program, including for co-production of parts and components in the United States by U.S. industry. The funds for the David’s Sling Weapon System may be disbursed after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment certifies: (1) That the Government of Israel has demonstrated successful completion of certain milestones required by 

the research, development, and technology agreement and the bilateral co-production agreement; (2) That the funds will be matched 

on a one-for-one basis or in an amount that otherwise meets best 

efforts; and (3) That the level of co-production of parts and components in the United States is not less than 50 percent. 

The funds for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program may 

be disbursed after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 

and Sustainment certifies that the United States has entered into 

a bilateral agreement with the Government of Israel. That agreement must establish: (1) The terms of co-production of parts and 

components; (2) Transparency on the Israeli requirement for the 

number of interceptors and batteries; (3) Technical milestones for 

co-production and procurement; (4) A joint affordability working 

group to consider cost reduction initiatives; and (5) Joint approval 

processes for third-party sales. 

The committee acknowledges that the September 14, 2016, 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States 

and Israel commits $500.0 million in U.S. funding for cooperative 

missile defense programs annually beginning in fiscal year 2019 

and ending in fiscal year 2028. According to the MOU, the United 

States and Israel jointly understand that any U.S. funds provided 

for such programs should be made available according to separate 

bilateral agreements for the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 

3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program and should maximize co-production of parts and components in the United States at a level equal 

346 

to or greater than 50 percent of U.S.-appropriated funds for production. Additionally, Israel commits not to seek additional missile defense funding from the United States for the duration of the MOU, 

except in exceptional circumstances as may be jointly agreed by the 

United States and Israel. The committee expects to receive annual 

updates on all cooperative defense programs, as delineated in the 

MOU, to include progress reports and spending plans, as well as 

the top-line figures of the Israel Missile Defense Organization 

budget for these programs. 

Metrics for evaluating effectiveness of integrated Ballistic 

Missile Defense System against operationally realistic 

ballistic missile attacks (sec. 1655) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) from obligating 50 

percent of funds available for the Command and Control, Battle 

Management and Communications (C2BMC) until the Director of 

the Missile Defense Agency establishes metrics for evaluating the 

effectiveness of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS) and its components and elements against operationally realistic ballistic missile attacks on areas defended by U.S. combatant commands. Since 2004, the MDA has expended roughly $5.1 

billion in funding for the C2BMC system. While this funding has 

delivered vital capabilities to the warfighter over time, as the Congress exercises oversight of MDA, it is difficult to follow the 

progress that the investment in C2BMC has delivered. 

The MDA reports capability delivery goals and progress at the 

element level, which enables some oversight of individual elements. 

However, the MDA does not report progress related to software intensive capabilities that drive how two or more elements must 

interact to deliver higher performing integrated BMDS capabilities: 

for example, the ability to launch one of several types of interceptors that are part of the integrated system based on a cue from the 

family of sensors that are part of the integrated system. Thus, the 

Congress has limited insight into the progress and overall return 

on investment. 

The committee notes that increasing BMDS integration, including automation and interoperability between multiple BMDS elements, is crucial to addressing increasing quantities and capabilities of ballistic missile threats world-wide and recognizes MDA’s recent progress in BMDS integration. In recent years, however, the 

Comptroller General of the United States and the Department of 

Defense Director of Operational Test and Evaluation continue to 

report integrated BMDS capability shortfalls, in part due to schedule delays for C2BMC. Specifically, the MDA emphasizes the importance of the C2BMC as the BMDS integrator; however, the way 

progress is reported makes it nearly impossible to determine how 

much cost growth or schedule delay has occurred and to assess 

which capabilities the C2BMC has delivered over the last decade 

as compared to original plans, budgets, and schedules. 

The lack of objective metrics for these capabilities has limited 

visibility into the effects of delays on overall performance and has 

thus been a significant impediment to adequate oversight. The 

347 

Comptroller General has therefore recommended that such metrics 

and progress be part of the MDA’s external reporting process. 

Given that the C2BMC is a software intensive capability, the 

metrics that allow assessment of progress differ from those typically used to assess hardware-intensive systems. Metrics that demonstrate improvement in the quality and timeliness of the information the system uses to manage ballistic missile defense battles are 

critically important. Such measures would allow oversight and assessment of the extent to which C2BMC is or is not shortening the 

amount of time and resources required to sense a ballistic missile 

threat and the success rate for engagement of the threat-to include 

complex structured attacks, not merely engagement of a single 

threat. 

This provision would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency, to coordinate with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; Director, BMDS Operational Test Agency; Commander, Joint 

Forces Combatant Command-Integrated Missile Defense; as well as 

the service acquisition executives and combatant commanders to 

develop operationally relevant performance metrics for the integrated BMDS and, in particular, C2BMC capabilities. 

This provision would also require the MDA to report progress 

against these metrics in its annual reports to the congressional defense committees on its acquisition baselines, beginning in February 2019. The committee believes that it is important to require 

such metrics to ensure that they will be an enduring feature of 

MDA program management and oversight in the future. 

Modification of requirement relating to transition of ballistic missile defense programs to military departments 

(sec. 1656) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1676(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to clarify the equivalent of Milestone C approval for the Missile Defense Agency. 

Sense of the Senate on acceleration of missile defense capabilities (sec. 1657) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should 

accelerate the fielding, if technically feasible, of the planned additional 20 ground-based interceptors with redesigned kill vehicles 

(RKVs) at Fort Greely, Alaska, and ensure that the RKV has demonstrated the ability to accomplish its intended mission through a 

successful, operationally realistic flight test. Furthermore, the provision would express the sense of the Senate that the MDA should 

rapidly develop and deploy a space-based sensor architecture and 

invest in innovative concepts for existing technologies to ensure 

that missile defenses are effective against emerging threats such as 

hypersonic and cruise missiles. The provision would also require 

the Director of the MDA to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act on the ways the MDA could accelerate such construction 

and deployment at Fort Greely. 

348 

Integrated air and missile defense for evolving theater missile threats (sec. 1658) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should pursue regional 

missile defense assets to counter and deter cruise, short-to-medium-range ballistic, and hypersonic missile threats, as well as continue to focus resources on developing an interoperable and integrated air-and-missile defense architecture. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional 

defense committees no later than 90 days after the enactment of 

this Act a report on the Department of Defense’s plan for the creation of a fully interoperable and integrated air and missile defense 

architecture, if consistent with the recommendations of the 2018 

Missile Defense Review. 

Acceleration of hypersonic missile defense program (sec. 

1659) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to accelerate the hypersonic 

missile defense program and deploy that program in conjunction 

with a persistent space-based missile defense sensor program. The 

provision would also require that the Director submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act on how hypersonic missile defense 

can be accelerated to meet emerging hypersonic threats. 

Sense of the Senate on allied partnerships for missile defense (sec. 1660) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should seek additional 

opportunities to provide missile defense capabilities to allies and 

trusted partners and seek to expedite foreign military sales in delivering such missile defenses to those partners. 

Sense of the Senate on results of tests carried out by Missile 

Defense Agency (sec. 1660A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that tests carried out by the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) that do not achieve the main intended objective 

should not be considered failures and that the MDA should recognize the learning value of individual advancements made by all 

testing events. Furthermore, the provision would express the sense 

of the Senate that the MDA should continue to build independently 

accredited modeling and simulation elements and pursue an increasingly rigorous testing regime in coordination with the Office 

of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to more rapidly 

deliver capabilities to the warfighter as the threat evolves. 

Sense of the Senate on discrimination for missile defense 

(sec. 1660B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that prioritizing discrimination capabilities to 

improve missile defense effectiveness against current and future 

threats is critically important. The provision would also require the 

349 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit a report 

no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act describing improvements to discrimination required within the missile defense architecture, MDA’s plan to rapidly field advanced discrimination capabilities, and an analysis of efforts to address the 

discrimination challenges of emerging adversary threats. 

Development and deployment of persistent space-based sensor architecture (sec. 1660C) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to commence developing a persistent space-based sensor architecture capable of supporting the ballistic missile defense system, notwithstanding the 

outcome of the Missile Defense Review. The provision would also 

require that the architecture developed by MDA be compatible with 

efforts of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

related to space-based sensors for missile defense and would require that the Secretary of Defense submit a report no later than 

90 days after the date of enactment of this Act to the congressional 

defense committees on the progress of and coordination between 

the MDA, DARPA, and Air Force efforts in this area. 

Modification of requirement to develop a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer (sec. 1660D) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to commence development 

of a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer notwithstanding 

the outcome of the Missile Defense Review. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of Russia 

and China (sec. 1661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the electronic warfare capabilities of the 

Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China. Electronic warfare is increasingly used to gain an asymmetric advantage with respect to electronic systems such as Global Positioning System. It is 

essential that the Department of Defense, as it develops countermeasures, holistically study all aspects of how Russia and China 

develop electronic warfare doctrine and order of battle across multiple domains, in addition to long-term research trends for each 

country. 

Budget exhibit on support provided to entities outside Department of Defense (sec. 1662) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to include in the budget 

justification materials accompanying the President’s Budget request each year a budget exhibit containing all relevant details on 

Department of Defense support to the programs at the Executive 

Office of the President related to senior leader communications and 

continuity of government programs. 

350 

The committee is aware that the Department provides critical capabilities to the President in support of senior leader communications and continuity of government missions, and the committee 

fully supports these activities, including those of the White House 

Military Office, the White House Communications Agency, and certain activities at the Defense Information Systems Agency. The 

committee has found, however, that the Department is often unable 

to provide even the most basic information about how much funding supports these programs and from where that funding comes. 

This has resulted in at least one instance in which the Department 

spent funds despite a provision of law prohibiting the expenditure 

of those funds. The committee understands the need to protect the 

details of these programs but strongly believes that the Congress 

needs more information than currently provided in order to perform its most basic oversight functions. 

Development of Electromagnetic Battle Management capability for joint electromagnetic operations (sec. 1663) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Electronic Warfare Executive Committee to designate a military 

Service with the responsibility for acting as executive agent for the 

development of an Electromagnetic Battle Management capability 

for joint electromagnetic operations. 

The committee is concerned by the limited advocacy across the 

Department of Defense for the development and management of 

electronic warfare systems. The committee understands that, while 

a requirement for a joint Electromagnetic Battle Management exists, no Service has been assigned the responsibility for developing 

the capability. The committee believes that the development of a 

joint Electromagnetic Battle Management capability is critical to 

addressing the current and anticipated challenges posed by our 

most capable adversaries. 

Budget Items 

Army Cyber Center of Excellence 

The budget request included $65.8 million for Cyberspace Operations Forces and Force Support, Army Research Development 

Technology and Engineering programs, PE 35251A. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a total of $70.8 million, 

in PE 35251A, for the Army Cyber Center of Excellence to carry 

out a pilot project in partnership with institutions of higher education. 

Wargaming and simulator systems 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, of which $117.6 

million was for PE 1206601F space technology. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91), this committee urged the Department of Defense to invest in its military construction accounts for science and 

technology facilities, as well as those used for test and evaluation. 

Unfortunately, these projects generally fall victim to low 

351 

prioritization, despite their major value to the Department’s mission. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 mil- lion, for a total of $123.6 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, PE 

1206601F, for minor military construction. The committee adds 

these funds in order to fund the request for the Wargaming and 

Simulator Laboratory. The committee strongly encourages the Air 

Force to ensure that coordination regarding the appropriate planning and design occurs so that this project is executable. 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which $345.0 

million was for PE 65230F Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

(GBSD). 

The committee understands that the technology maturation and 

risk reduction phase of the GBSD program is several months ahead 

of schedule, in part due to the lack of a protest of the contract 

award. The committee strongly supports the GBSD program as an 

integral part of the nuclear modernization effort, supported by the 

2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The committee commends the Air 

Force’s effort to maintain or increase schedule margin on this program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $69.4 mil- lion, for a total of $414.4 million in RDTEAF, PE 65230F, for the 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. 

Space Rapid Capabilities Office 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which $366.0 

million was for PE 1206857F Space Rapid Capabilities Office. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million, for a total of 

$316.0 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1206857F, for the Solar Power 

Project, as funding is early-to-need. The committee fully supports 

the Space Rapid Capabilities Office and its underlying objectives. 

The committee’s reduction of $50.0 million is without prejudice to 

the Solar Power Project, and the committee has confirmed with the 

Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center that the funding 

could be applied to other Air Force space priorities, such as the 

Blackjack program, without any impact on the Solar Power Project. 

The committee expects and encourages the Air Force to request the 

necessary funding in its fiscal year 2020 budget to maintain the 

schedule for the Solar Power Project. 

Long Range Standoff Weapon 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which $614.9 

million was for PE 64932F Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO). 

The committee understands that, after an initial delay in the 

award of the technology maturation and risk reduction contracts 

for the LRSO in 2017, the program is now executing ahead of 

schedule. The committee supports the timely replacement of the 

AGM–85B Air-Launched Cruise Missile in order to retain a credible air-launched leg of the nuclear triad and is concerned that, 

352 

without additional funding, the Air Force may be forced to slow 

down or stop work on the LRSO program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $85.0 mil- lion, for a total of $699.9 million in RDTEAF, PE 64932F, for the 

Long Range Standoff Weapon. 

Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which $643.1 

million was for the PE 1206442F Evolved Space-Based Infrared 

System. The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million, 

for a total of $743.1 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1206442F, to accelerate sensor development. The committee, in consultation with the 

Air Force, believes the acceleration of space vehicle sensor development is required to reduce overall program risk for the Block 0 

Next-Generation Persistent Infrared satellite and to begin risk reduction for Block 1. 

Joint Space Operations Center Mission System 

The budget request included $40.2 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), of which $72.3 

million was for PE 1203614F Joint Space Operations Center Mission System. 

The committee recognizes the agile software development realignment of this program and notes that there should be cost savings associated with this approach. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $62.3 million, in RDTEAF, PE 1203614F. 

Hypersonic missile defense 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$120.4 million was for hypersonic missile defense. 

The committee believes this is insufficient to accelerate the development of critical interceptor technology in the areas of propulsion and materials as well as initiate across the kill chain advanced technology activities specifically focused on the hypersonic 

glide vehicle threat. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $46.1 million-$10.5 million for PE 64181C; $13.4 million for PE 63178C; and 

$22.2 million for PE 63180C-for a total of $166.5 million, in 

RDTEDW, for hypersonic missile defense. This additional funding 

was requested by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency on the 

Unfunded Requirements List. 

Exploiting commercial technology for synthetic aperture 

radar imaging and automated exploitation 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$83.1 million was for PE 63375D8Z Technology Innovation. The 

committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million, for a total of 

$103.1 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63375D8Z, to fund the engineering development and launch of multiple prototype synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites and to sustain Project DATAHUB. 

353 

The committee continues to support the efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) to exploit technology advances to acquire 

additional, affordable space-based SAR capabilities. Currently, only 

foreign companies produce commercially available SAR satellites. 

Multiple U.S. companies are developing small SAR satellites at an 

estimated price point of $10.0 million or less per satellite on a recurring cost basis, with launch costs adding several million dollars, 

amounts that are orders of magnitude less than traditional space 

acquisition programs. These satellites are designed to have resolution in the range of 1 meter and impressive per-orbit collection capacity. At present and forecasted cost and performance levels, the 

DOD could afford to purchase, launch, and sustain a large constellation to augment the coverage and resilience, and reduce the 

latency of, existing and planned government and commercial imaging systems. 

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the former Deputy 

Secretary of Defense also led an initiative, under Project 

DATAHUB, to capitalize on commercial expertise in artificial intelligence/machine learning technology to automate radar imagery exploitation, which is an indispensable condition for maintaining custody of important ground targets by distributed constellations of 

spacecraft and airborne sensors. 

The committee encourages the Vice Chairman to continue with 

these initiatives but to also use an established acquisition program 

office, such as the newly designated Space Rapid Capabilities Office, to execute them. The Vice Chairman should ensure that the 

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) novates any previously awarded contracts for the efforts to establish the acquisition program that the Vice Chairman selects. The committee directs the Vice Chairman not to continue execution of the initiatives 

through DIUx. The goal of these efforts is to acquire operational capabilities for the Department of Defense—not to stimulate a commercial radar imaging industry. These projects may be pursued 

under the ‘‘Middle Tier’’ acquisition authority provided by section 

804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92), as described in a memorandum dated April 

16, 2018, issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 

and Sustainment. 

United States Forces Korea Joint Emergent Operational 

Need 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$81.0 million was for the U.S. Pacific Command Joint Emergent 

Operational Need (JEON). 

In order to deliver improved ballistic missile defense system capability to the Korean Peninsula, including the integration of existing ballistic missile defense assets to improve engagement options 

and coverage area, the committee recommends an increase of 

$284.5 million—$184.1 million in PE 63881C, $24.0 million in PE 

63884C, $71.9 million in PE 63914C, and $4.5 million in PE 

63915C—for a total of $365.5 million for U.S. Pacific Command 

JEON. This additional funding was requested by the Director of 

the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on the Unfunded Requirements 

354 

List. The committee notes, however, that the MDA has struggled 

in the past to deliver certain capabilities relevant to this JEON on 

an accelerated schedule despite planning to do so. The committee 

is not confident that, with the increased funding for the JEON, 

these capabilities will be delivered on the required schedule. For 

this reason, the committee urges the MDA to ensure, through rigorous oversight, that the JEON requirements are delivered to the 

warfighter on time. The committee further notes that removing 

testing events in order to deliver capabilities in a shorter period of 

time is an irresponsible acquisition practice and encourages the 

MDA to reconsider the decision to forgo those testing events. 

For these reasons, the committee directs the Comptroller General 

of the United States to submit to the congressional defense committees a report not later than December 1, 2018, that addresses the 

following: (1) The MDA’s progress in developing, delivering, and deploying the capabilities described in the United States Forces 

Korea (USFK) JEON; (2) A comparison of USFK JEON capabilities 

with the original Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System and the original plans for executing European 

Phased Adaptive Approach; (3) An evaluation of the extent to 

which USFK JEON capabilities are sufficient to counter the threat; 

and (4) An evaluation of any factors inhibiting development, acquisition, and delivery of USFK JEON capabilities. 

Midcourse ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$926.4 million was for PE 63882C Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense. 

In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the fiscal 

year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$208.0 million—a $143.0 million decrease for additional boosters 

with the redesigned kill vehicle and a $65.0 million decrease for 

silos at missile field 4 in Fort Greely, Alaska—for a total of $718.4 

million, in RDTEDW, PE 63882C, for Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense. 

Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, (RDTEDW), of which 

$475.2 million was for PE 63896C Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle Management & Communication. 

The committee encourages the program to deliver capability 

more frequently. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million, for a total of $425.2 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63896C. 

Sea-based X-band Radar 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$149.7 million was for PE 63907C Sea-based X-band Radar (SBX). 

In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the fiscal 

year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease of $33.0 

355 

million—a $13.0 million decrease for SBX software upgrades and 

a $20.0 million decrease for previous program increases—for a total 

of $116.7 million, in RDTEDW, PE 63907C, for SBX. 

Ballistic missile defense targets 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$517.9 million was for PE 63915C ballistic missile defense targets. 

In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.0 

million, for a total of $486.4 million after the separate $4.5 million 

increase for United States Forces Korea Joint Emergent Operational Need, in RDTEDW, PE 63915C, for ballistic missile defense 

targets. 

Boost phase intercept laser scaling 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$148.8 million was for PE 64115C technology maturation. 

While multiple efforts are ongoing within the Department of Defense for directed energy, laser scaling is a key technology that will 

enable the development of a boost phase intercept capability specifically for missile defense. 

In order to achieve a demonstration of a 500 kilowatt laser and 

a best of breed 1-megawatt laser capability by 2024, which will enable the development of a boost phase intercept capability, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million, for a total of 

$228.8 million, in RDTEDW, PE 64115C, for technology maturation. This additional funding was requested by the Director of the 

Missile Defense Agency on the Unfunded Requirements List. 

Quartermaster Pathfinder 

The budget request included $1.2 billion for Advanced Innovative 

Technologies, Defense-wide Research, Development, Technology, 

and Engineering programs, exhibit R-1, line 96, Program Element 

6425D8Z. 

The committee is concerned that our adversaries continue to target Department of Defense data to gain technological and operational advantages, undermining U.S. data security and integrity, 

as well as mission assurance. As such, the committee supports the 

development and fielding of enhanced tools to increase data security and integrity for priority missions and supporting systems. The 

Quartermaster Pathfinder will provide such capabilities, protecting 

data in both transit and rest to enable increased mission assurance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for the Strategic Capabilities Office’s Quartermaster Pathfinder. 

Improved homeland defense interceptors 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$561.2 million was for PE 64874C improved homeland defense 

interceptors. 

356 

In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the fiscal 

year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$139.4 million, for a total of $421.8 million, in RDTEDW, PE 

64878C, for improved homeland defense interceptors. 

Midcourse segment test for ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $22.0 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), of which 

$81.9 million was for PE 64887C ballistic missile defense midcourse segment test. 

In order to realign the fiscal year 2019 budget with the fiscal 

year 2018 omnibus, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.3 

million, for a total of $72.6 million, in RDTEDW, PE 64887C, for 

ballistic missile defense midcourse segment test. 

Missile Defense Tracking System 

The budget request for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) did 

not include funding for the Missile Defense Tracking System. The 

committee believes this capability is vital to the future of the missile defense architecture and notes that the MDA Director, Lieutenant General Greaves, stated in written testimony on March 22, 

2018, that ‘‘integrated space and terrestrial sensors for cuing, 

tracking, discrimination, and targeting ballistic missile threats are 

critical to improving missile defense architecture robustness.’’ The 

committee is concerned that as missile defense advanced technology develops, and as the threat of ballistic, hypersonic, and 

other threats emerge, missile defenses will require an advanced 

tracking and sensing system and that the Department of Defense 

has not prioritized this requirement. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $73.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, 

for PE 1206895C, line number to be determined, to establish a program of record for the Missile Defense Tracking System. This additional funding was requested by the Director of the MDA on the 

Unfunded Requirements List. Spacecraft and sensor development 

efforts should be comparable and complementary to efforts underway at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for its 

Blackjack program, and the Director of the MDA shall provide a report prior to the obligation or expenditure of funds demonstrating 

such compatibility. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force nuclear acquisition programs 

The committee continues to support the long-term modernization 

of the nuclear triad but is concerned that the Air Force’s program 

offices responsible for these programs are understaffed. The programs have separate system program offices with little, if any, 

bridge between them in personnel despite sharing a common building. Given that the Department of Defense plans for the Ground 

Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to be operational in the 2030s 

and that the Minuteman III weapon system is still undergoing 

sustainment, a coherent acquisition plan must be developed in 

357 

order to provide a smooth transition for the intercontinental ballistic missile leg of the triad. 

Therefore, the committee directs that no later than March 15, 

2019, the Secretary of the Air Force report to the congressional defense committees on the required staffing over the next 5 years for 

nuclear acquisition programs within Air Force Materiel Command. 

The report shall detail the acquisition staffing shortfalls at each 

system program office and a plan to remedy these shortfalls using 

funding from existing programs for direct hiring of staff. The report 

shall further articulate a long-term plan for the support of the nuclear modernization program including all potential sources of 

qualified personnel to ensure continuity of knowledge and expertise 

in the long term, including the number of required positions over 

the next 5 years. Finally, the report shall describe a long-term plan 

for phasing from the sustainment of the Minuteman III to the acquisition of the GBSD, which is currently in a technology management and risk reduction phase. 

Airborne tracking and targeting system 

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has 

been developing and testing ballistic missile tracking and surveillance using electro-optical-infrared (EO-IR) equipped aircraft under 

an experimental program. The committee directs the Director of 

the Missile Defense Agency, in coordination with Commander, Pacific Command and Commander, Central Command to perform an 

analysis of airborne EO-IR capability to support the ballistic missile defense mission, the airborne platform and sensor capabilities 

required to perform this mission, and the impacts of the addition 

of an operational fleet of advanced EO-IR sensors deployed on an 

airborne platform to the ballistic missile defense system, to include 

integration and test efforts, operational value for regional and 

homeland defense, basing options, warfighter concepts of operation, 

and total research, development, test, and evaluation and operations and sustainment costs associated with deployment to the Pacific Command and Central Command areas of responsibility. The 

committee directs the Director to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than June 3, 2019, on this analysis. 

Assessment of and plan for experimentation with Iron Dome 

for short-range air defense 

The committee notes that, since 2011, the Congress has authorized approximately $1.5 billion for the procurement of Iron Dome 

batteries for Israel. Given the demonstrated success of Iron Dome, 

the committee sees value in experimentation with the Iron Dome 

system, including potential integration of the Iron Dome command 

and control system with existing U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense (AMD) systems, to assess its suitability in addressing gaps in 

U.S. AMD capabilities. However, the committee understands that 

there may be some software code limitations and MILSPEC standard compliance concerns. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Army to provide to the congressional defense committees no later 

than December 31, 2018, an assessment of Iron Dome’s suitability 

for the Army’s short-range air defense mission, a plan for experiVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
358 

mentation with and demonstration of Iron Dome, and a determination of the feasibility of its use. 

Common Minuteman III maintenance vehicle 

The committee understands that each intercontinental ballistic 

missile wing within the Air Force currently receives a bare maintenance truck, which must then be individually retrofitted in an ad 

hoc way to support maintenance operations by enlisted airmen. The 

result is a cost- and labor-inefficient process for the Minuteman III 

weapons system, which is common to all three wings. The committee further understands that the Air Force chose to pursue a 

common maintenance truck for each of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization and U.S. European Command sites for maintenance 

personnel to work with the B61 weapons and that this program has 

been successful. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 15, 2019, containing a plan to transition to a common 

maintenance vehicle once the current vehicle begins to age out over 

the next 5 years. 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber 

classification 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the Government 

Accountability Office no later than 90 days after the enactment of 

this Act detailing the Department of Defense’s classification and 

declassification practices and policies regarding its posture, order of 

battle, and policies in cyberspace. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

no later than 1 year after receipt of these procedures on these classification and declassification practices, assessing their stringency, 

especially as compared to other classification and declassification 

instructions, and their potential effect in overclassification. 

The committee is concerned that the Department’s classification 

policies are overly restrictive regarding matters in cyberspace. 

Though it recognizes that the Department’s cyber posture and policies are particularly sensitive, it is frustrated by the Department’s 

excessive secrecy, which reduces cyber’s visibility, excludes otherwise-informed voices from policy debates, and obviates justification 

of posture and policy choices. 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense cyber 

hygiene 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

no later than 1 year after enactment of this Act on policies governing the Department of Defense (DOD) cyber hygiene and the 

implementation of its Cybersecurity Culture and Compliance Initiative and Cyber Workforce Management Program. The report 

should assess: (1) The threat posed by the Department’s cyber hygiene weaknesses; (2) The Department’s cyber hygiene strategy and 

guidelines; and (3) The Department’s means of distribution, eduVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00392 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
359 

cation, and implementation, especially as compared to successful 

cybersecurity curricula in the private and public sector. No later 

than 180 days after the Comptroller General submits the report, 

the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) shall submit a report 

summarizing his comments and plan to address the Government 

Accountability Office’s concerns. 

The committee is concerned that the Department’s greatest 

vulnerabilities may lie in architectures through which DOD personnel interact with outside networks, making poor cyber hygiene 

of the utmost priority. While the Department’s measures to negate 

the systematic vulnerabilities of its secure networks are impressive, it must continue to improve its pedagogy of best cyber practices throughout the Department and implement its signature cybersecurity initiatives. These efforts lie within the purview of the 

CIO, whose responsibilities and authorities have changed precipitously in the last few years; the committee hopes that this instability has not impaired the Department’s development and communication of cyber hygiene best practices. 

Comptroller General review of geographic combatant command integration in nuclear planning and operations 

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) identifies the increased 

potential for regional conflicts involving nuclear-armed adversaries, 

including Russia and North Korea. Further, the NPR highlights 

the need for U.S. leadership, including U.S. Combatant Commanders, to communicate across networked command and control 

systems and integrate nuclear and non-nuclear military planning 

and operations. The committee notes in particular that the NPR 

states that the combatant commands will plan, train, and exercise 

to integrate U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear forces to deter limited 

nuclear escalation and non-nuclear attacks. The committee supports this effort but is concerned that that significant improvements will need to be made in infrastructure and operations to support. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to assess the Department of Defense’s plans and efforts to incorporate the geographic combatant commands into nuclear planning and operations, including command and control responsibilities. The assessment should include: (1) The role of the 

geographic combatant commands in the nuclear mission; (2) The 

expertise within the geographic combatant commands on nuclear 

planning and capabilities; (3) The ability of geographic combatant 

commands to plan and conduct nuclear operations, including command and control operations; and (4) Any changes to command and 

control infrastructure that might be needed to support the recommendation of the NPR. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 

briefing on preliminary findings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 31, 

2019, with a report to follow at a time agreed to at the time of the 

briefing. The committee also directs the Department of Defense, 

the military departments, and the relevant combatant and subordinate commands to share relevant information about nuclear planVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00393 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
360 

ning, capabilities, and operations with the Government Accountability Office in order to enable this review. 

Conventional Prompt Strike early limited operational capability 

The committee continues to be encouraged by the commitment of 

the Department of Defense to the Conventional Prompt Strike 

(CPS) activity shown in the budget request and remains supportive 

of the Department’s approach of maturing and demonstration key 

technologies needed by both land- and sea-based CPS systems. The 

committee believes that, should the Department determine that an 

early limited operational capability for the CPS activity is required, 

the Department should budget additional funding above the current plan in order to avoid cost and schedule delays to the planned 

baseline activity. The committee further directs the Secretary of 

Defense, in coordination with the Director of Navy Strategic Systems Programs, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense 

committees no later than November 1, 2019, on the current 

progress of the Conventional Prompt Strike activity. 

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology 

The committee remains concerned about the proliferation of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), which include both the unmanned 

aircraft and its operator controller device. For a number of years, 

adversaries of the United States have used UASs in international 

conflict areas to surveil, disrupt, and threaten U.S. and allied personnel, facilities, and interests. These challenges are compounded 

by the growing prevalence of UASs domestically, which can be used 

for legitimate military, commercial, and recreational purposes but 

could also be used irresponsibly or with malign intent. The committee continues to believe that critical military personnel, facilities, and assets must be protected from these threats and encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop an array of 

counter-UAS (CUAS) capabilities, particularly nonkinetic CUAS capabilities that can: identify, monitor, and track UASs; operate passively without interfering with existing military, civilian, and commercial communication systems; and differentiate between authorized and unauthorized UASs. 

Where appropriate, the committee supports increased funding to 

meet Joint Urgent Operational Needs validated by the Joint Staff 

concerning CUAS solutions as well as the continued development 

of CUAS tactics, techniques, and procedures to protect DOD personnel, facilities, and assets. Additionally, the committee recognizes 

the importance of developing necessary legal authorities to manage 

a complex domestic environment. It notes with appreciation DOD’s 

efforts to inform and collaborate with other relevant departments 

and agencies following the adoption of section 1692 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

91) and urges the continued sharing of best practices across the 

government. The committee expects that the DOD will continue to 

coordinate with the Department of Transportation and the Federal 

Aviation Administration, as required by section 1692 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 

115–91). 

361 

Cyber attacks by the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China on Department of Defense affiliates 

The committee remains concerned about reports that cyber actors 

employed by or affiliated with the Russian Federation and People’s 

Republic of China have targeted Department of Defense (DOD) systems, the systems of DOD contractors working on sensitive U.S. 

military technology, and the personal communications of U.S. military personnel. While the DOD has taken steps to harden its systems, the committee remains concerned that not enough is being 

done to detect and protect against attacks by the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China against non-government systems and other less-protected targets affiliated with the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on cyber attacks against the Department of Defense in the previous 24 months 

by agents or associates of the Russian and Chinese governments 

against DOD systems, the systems of DOD contractors working on 

sensitive U.S. military technology, and the personal communications of U.S. military personnel. The report shall describe what actions, if any, the Department is taking or plans to take to protect 

less-hardened targets against Russian and Chinese cyber operations and any associated legislative authorities required. 

Defense options for Guam 

The committee notes that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system protects the island of Guam against the 

threat of rogue nations’ short-, medium-, and intermediate-range 

ballistic missiles. The committee strongly supports efforts to augment the defense of Guam with a layered Ballistic Missile Defense 

System, to include more capable interceptors and sensors against 

these rogue threats. As the Department of Defense continues to 

work on the Missile Defense Review, the committee encourages the 

Department to consider the addition of diverse missile defenses 

that would complement the THAAD system and provide a layered 

defense to ensure protection against more complex threats, such as 

cruise and hypersonic missiles. 

Department of Defense efforts to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security Fusion Centers 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider 

coordinating with the other relevant Federal Government departments and agencies and each State that has a National Guard with 

a defensive cyber operations element to establish regionally-focused 

public-private cooperative agreements or cross-functional taskforces, responsible for the creation of strategies to coordinate and 

share information among local, regional, and national entities, both 

public and private, in order to protect vital assets in the cyber 

realm. This cooperation might leverage divergent skillsets, extant 

public-private partnership relationships, and high-performing Federal Government assets in the joint defense of public and private 

systems. These cross-functional task-forces could comprise National 

Guard units, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) State and 

362 

Major Urban Area Fusion Centers, and private sector companies 

with significant cybersecurity equities and assets—in particular, in 

critical infrastructure sectors—thereby strengthening active participation and sharing of information, integrating threat mitigation 

strategies, and growing the cyber network through shared experience. 

Pursuant to this kind of coordination, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on opportunities and efforts underway to cooperate 

with DHS fusion centers and State assets in cybersecurity. This report should relay: (1) The extant collaboration between National 

Guard units, the rest of the public sector, and the private sector 

in advancing cybersecurity across their aggregated assets; (2) 

Planned cooperation along these lines; and (3) The Secretary’s assessment of opportunities in cooperation in red-teaming, incident 

response, data-sharing, provision of technical expertise, common cybersecurity standards, and attachment to DHS State and Major 

Urban Area Fusion Centers. 

Digital High Frequency Global Communications System 

The committee is aware that the Air Force’s High Frequency 

Global Communications System (HFGCS) and the Navy’s messaging system are both transitioning to digital operations as part 

of the modernization of the nuclear command, control, and communications enterprise. The committee is also aware that the interface 

between these two message traffic systems currently relies on analog routing technology, which will become unsupportable and must 

be replaced. However, the committee is concerned that the Air 

Force does not currently provide sufficient oversight of the HFGCS 

program relative to the importance of its mission in disseminating 

emergency action messages world-wide. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the organization and management of the HFGCS no later than March 15, 

2019. The report shall include the conversion of the system to digital operations as well as the interface with Navy systems. 

Diversified access to space with Federal Aviation Administration-licensed spaceports 

The committee continues to recognize the unique importance of 

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration-licensed spaceports and, 

when appropriate, encourages the use of such spaceports and 

launch and range complexes for mid-to-low inclination orbits or 

polar high-inclination orbits in support of national security space 

priorities. There are a number of spaceports that are already developed or under development, including in New Mexico, Alaska, 

Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Arizona. 

As the Department of Defense (DOD) and future national security space missions begin to prioritize the use of smaller, less expensive satellites and launch vehicles for rapid reconstitution and 

resilience, the DOD should assess what benefit nontraditional 

spaceports may offer in terms of cost and flexibility. 

363 

The Department of Defense and future national security space 

missions are focused on using smaller, less expensive satellites and 

launch vehicles for rapid reconstitution and resilience. Spaceports 

have proven small launch capability and offer the U.S. government 

less costly launch sites and services for these missions and an alternative to Vandenberg Air Force Base, using commercial business 

practices to expedite DOD test and development programs across 

a variety of mission sets and a variety of launch and landing methods. 

The committee believes that these federally-licensed, non-federally-owned launch facilities—including the Spaceport America in 

New Mexico, Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA), the MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and Oklahoma Air & Space 

Port—are available to help meet the requirements for the national 

security space program from the DOD, Air Force Space Command, 

the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The committee notes that such spaceports improve the 

resiliency of U.S. launch infrastructure and help ensure consistent 

access to space to support national security space priorities. 

The PSCA has supported numerous launches for Air Force Space 

Command including specific national security launches. It remains 

the only commercial polar launch range available in the United 

States, offering both orbital and sub-orbital capabilities. A state-ofthe-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island, Alaska, PSCA provides 

access to space for vital government and commercial interests. The 

committee supports the Missile Defense Agency’s plan to conduct 

tests of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system 

from the PSCA and encourages the DOD, where appropriate, to 

consider expanding the use of federally-licensed, non-federallyowned launch facilities to conduct national security launches and 

U.S. and foreign missile tests. 

The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska supported the Space and 

Missile Defense Command Advanced Hypersonic test launch in 

2014 and has both the facilities and range to support a variety of 

other multi-service hypersonic tests. U.S. Strategic Command is focused on developing a resilient response force that has enhanced 

capabilities and that can respond to an adversary. The PSCA has 

become a force multiplier in being the alternative west coast range 

to Vandenberg Air Force Base, providing additional capacity to test 

national security missions from an existing spaceport. 

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, Virginia 

provides medium-class and small-class launch capabilities for the 

Department. It has launched numerous missions for the DOD with 

its agency partners, Air Force Space Command, the Operationally 

Responsive Space Office, and the MDA. The MARS provides assured/responsive access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads 

up to 15,300 lbs. The committee supports the Air Force/National 

Reconnaissance Office’s planned launch of the L–111 mission from 

the MARS by the end of 2018. The MARS provides additional proven east coast capacity for national security payloads, launches, 

flights of hypersonic vehicles, and other DOD test programs. 

The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Bums Flat, Oklahoma, is 

the only space port in the United States to have a civilian Federal 

Aviation Administration-approved spaceflight corridor in the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
364 

tional Airspace System. This spaceflight corridor is unique because 

it is not within military operating areas nor within restricted airspace, which provides an operational capability for space launch operations and associated industries specialized in space-related activities. 

Spaceport America in New Mexico is a licensed inland spaceport 

that already provides surface-to-space open sky launches landing in 

restricted flight zones. The New Mexico Spaceport is located next 

to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) where the DOD controls 

the only restricted air space in the country besides the White 

House. The committee notes that the Department has studied 

hypervelocity testing at White Sands Missile Range and its neighbor, Spaceport America, which has the horizontal and vertical 

launch and landing capacities that hypervelocity vehicles require. 

WSMR is preparing environmental impact statements for inland 

flight corridors that will be able to provide apogee-to-end-game suborbital instrumented flight solutions. 

The committee believes that it is also important for the Department to diversify its launch options and capabilities to include inland sites. From a national security perspective, a secure 

multimodal spaceport is advantageous for future hypervelocity development. Significant investments have been made at inland 

space ports, which already have the infrastructure in place to accommodate smaller space launches for the Department. 

The committee also directs the Air Force to conduct an assessment of small launch providers to determine what payloads are appropriate for launch and a plan for utilizing these providers in future launches at these spaceports. The committee directs the Air 

Force to brief the congressional defense committees on this assessment within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Early Warning Radar upgrades 

The committee notes an evolution of emerging space, ballistic 

missile, and hypersonic threats from a growing number of countries. The committee also notes that U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) has established operational requirements to utilize 

the latest advancements in early warning radar technology to ensure that the United States remains capable of detecting, 

classifying, and tracking incoming threats as soon as possible. 

While the committee supports the Air Force’s plan to add capabilities to the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System and Precision 

Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System, it is critical that detection range, target classification, tracking accuracy, 

and cost-effective operations are prioritized and funded as part of 

the initial upgrades to meet current and emerging requirements. 

The committee understands that early warning radar platforms 

sold to U.S. partners include significant technological advancements beyond those included in current U.S. systems. The committee feels that it is imperative that STRATCOM leverage technologies already developed that are currently utilized by U.S. partners. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, within 

180 days of enactment of this Act, detailing possible upgrades of 

365 

U.S. early warning radars to meet evolving threats beyond those 

already being addressed by the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. The report shall include a roadmap required to 

achieve state-of-the-art performance at U.S. early warning radar 

sites consistent with that of U.S. partners, including radar sensitivity and energy efficiency. 

Importance of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to United 

States strategic deterrence 

The committee has great interest in actions by the Department 

of Defense to develop, build, and deploy the Columbia-class ballistic 

missile submarine. The vessels in this class will be the latest nuclear-powered ships, continuing a distinguished line of technological advancement fostered by Admiral Hyman Rickover. In particular, the committee notes the important role of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, also known as Naval Reactors, in the 

Columbia program. Naval Reactors’ mission is to ensure the safe, 

reliable, and long-lived operation of U.S. Navy nuclear powered 

ships. This in turn ensures the viability of the undersea leg of the 

American nuclear deterrence triad, of which the Columbia-class 

submarines will be a critical piece. 

The committee notes that in the development of the Columbia- class submarines, the Navy is confronting an aggressive schedule 

and a certain level of technological risk. The committee therefore 

encourages Naval Reactors to renew its efforts in the program, particularly after experiencing difficulties in the manufacturing process and inadequate oversight of contractors, to ensure that schedule and technology risks are managed in accordance with best practices. The committee also urges Naval Reactors to ensure that the 

training of officer and enlisted personnel for nuclear power jobs 

continues to meet the highest standards. 

Laser communications 

The committee supports efforts to develop laser communications 

systems that enable the demonstration of secure, covert, anti-jam, 

very high data rate transmissions using laser communications. 

High data rate laser communications cross-link systems are essential to a proliferated satellite constellations architecture. The next 

critical challenge for laser communications is the implementation 

into rugged, lower cost, smaller packages for long-life, high-reliability satellite and airborne applications critical to intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), other national security applications, and commercial satellite constellations. 

The committee supports the development and demonstration of 

high-reliability, rugged laser communications cross-link systems. 

Doing so will help leverage existing prototypes for military applications as a proof-of-concept for an enhanced layer of resilience for 

missile warning, navigation, communications, weather, ISR, and 

other Department of Defense space applications. 

Launch vehicle reusability 

The committee notes that the prospect of launch vehicle 

reusability could have considerable cost savings for the taxpayer. 

The committee believes equal consideration of reusable and exVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00399 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
366 

pendable launch vehicles should be given in all future solicitations 

for which a reusable launch vehicle is technically capable. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees no later than January 31, 

2019, on the Air Force’s plan for the use of reusable launch vehicles. 

Layered ballistic missile defense 

The committee notes that the current Ballistic Missile Defense 

System (BMDS) protects the entire United States homeland, including Hawaii, from the limited ballistic missile threats of rogue 

nations. The committee strongly supports efforts to bolster the defense of the homeland with a layered BMDS, to included additional 

discrimination sensors and more capable interceptors, against such 

threats. Because of its location and the trajectories of potential 

threats, Hawaii is uniquely positioned in this layered defense. As 

the committee awaits the outcomes of the Department of Defense’s 

Missile Defense Review, the committee urges the Department to 

continue to ensure defense of the homeland, including Hawaii, 

against all ranges of cruise and ballistic missile threats, including 

increasingly complex threats, to include hypersonic missiles. 

Live fire training on missiles nearing demilitarization 

The committee is aware that the Navy’s leadership desires additional fleet readiness training, including live-firing of missiles in 

order to provide sailors with relevant and realistic training while 

also thoroughly exercising ship systems prior to deployment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a 

study that considers the use of SM–3 missiles that are nearing demilitarization in fleet live fire testing exercises. The Navy should 

determine if reprogramming funding meant for demilitarization for 

these missiles would be representative of the cost for fleet readiness training, how many missiles the Navy would need for testing, 

and if the missile is capable of certain necessary software changes 

to be used in a fleet live fire testing exercise. The committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the committee, no 

later than January 1, 2019, with the results of the study. 

Long-term plan for weapons storage facilities 

The committee understands that the Air Force plans to construct 

new weapons storage facilities (WSFs) for storage and maintenance 

of nuclear weapons to replace the current facilities at Air Force 

bases that support nuclear operations. These WSFs will also be required at the bases that the Air Force chooses as bed-down locations for the B–21 bomber. The committee supports the improvements in safety, security, and capability that the Air Force expects 

to gain through the new facilities but is concerned that the Air 

Force is currently unable to answer questions about: (1) The different requirements for WSFs at B–21 and B–52 bomber bases, 

missile bases, and bases that host a mix of systems; (2) The appropriate balance between cost and risk in design; and (3) Basic design 

information about the one WSF already underway at FE Warren 

Air Force Base. The committee is also concerned that the Air Force 

is not appropriately synchronizing the construction of these WSFs 

367 

with the plans for basing of the B–21 bomber and other force structure considerations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide to the congressional defense committees no later than 

March 15, 2019, a long-term plan for the recapitalization of weapons storage capacity for nuclear weapons at Air Force bases in the 

continental United States. The plan shall include current cost estimates for each site, taking into account the differences in capacity 

required depending on the systems at each bases, as well as a master schedule that is sequenced with the Air Force’s plan for the 

rollout of the B–21 bomber. 

Mapping of Department of Defense base stations 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to reduce and 

mitigate the risk from surreptitious mapping of sensitive locations 

by personal devices, particularly with respect to mapping based on 

Wi-Fi networks and other wireless devices. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to work in consultation with industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 

Transportation, and other relevant agencies to review the unintended consequences of these services and develop and implement 

any technical or operational precautions to prevent the collection of 

wireless network information and mitigate the risk associated with 

such activities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the defense committees no later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act on any actions taken to reduce and mitigate the risks associated with the mapping of sensitive locations by personal devices. 

Matters related to Department of Defense cyber ranges 

The committee is concerned about two challenges that the Department of Defense (DOD) faces with respect to its cyber ranges: 

(1) The limitations posed by traditional data storage and information technology paradigms; and (2) those offered by extant software 

licensing practices. 

The DOD maintains a significant number of ranges for training, 

exercises, mission rehearsal, and test and evaluation, but capacity 

is limited, and resources are relatively scarce. Meanwhile, expensive modernization of existing ranges is ongoing but faces the everpresent problem of obsolescence. To consolidate its training development resources, the Secretary of Defense designated the Army as 

the executive agent for developing and maintaining a persistent 

training environment equal to the needs of the Cyber Mission 

Forces. 

It is expensive to maintain technological parity in range infrastructure and emulation capability with real networks in foreign 

countries, the commercial networks making up the bulk of cyberspace, and the networks of the DOD, which each and collectively 

evolve rapidly. It is also difficult and costly for any single or federated government ranges to achieve the scale necessary for unit 

training and large-scale exercise scenarios. Desirable attributes for 

a cyber range are the scale and fidelity of authentic networks and 

the ability to rapidly configure and reconfigure computing environments through virtualization. 

368 

Modern commercial cloud offerings provide such capabilities. In 

addition, as a shared resource, clouds spread costs, are constantly 

modernized, and are extensible on demand. The only element that 

may not yet be natively available on commercial clouds is a network virtualization capability, which is clearly important for a 

cyber range, but such technology is available and could be integrated. 

The DOD is embarking on a major cloud services initiative, with 

commercial capabilities to be available at all levels of classification. 

This initiative or other ongoing acquisitions could provide a platform for the Persistent Training Environment and all the other 

range requirements. 

Software licenses are another major challenge for the effective 

functioning of DOD cyber ranges. The DOD’s information technology purchases do not as a rule include the rights to use software 

in a virtualized test or training environment. Moreover, pricing for 

such rights under normal licensing agreements would be 

unaffordable-or would prevent the Department from achieving anything near the scale and fidelity needed to clone varied networks 

for effective training and exercises. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, who serves as the 

Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), to conduct a study of the feasibility 

of transitioning the DOD’s cyber ranges to an enterprise service on 

commercial cloud, in consultation with the major stakeholders, including the Test Resource Management Center, the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Army, U.S. Cyber Command, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The PCA shall also consult 

with the Cloud Executive Steering Group. 

The committee also directs the PCA and the CIO to jointly assess 

the software licensing practices in the Department and consult 

with industry to identify viable license solutions that give the DOD 

the right to unlimited virtualized test and training instances. The 

committee encourages the DOD to use its considerable leverage in 

buying power in negotiation of such solutions. 

The committee directs the PCA to update the committee on these 

assessments within 180 days of the enactment of this Act. 

Microsegmentation 

The committee supports the increased use of automation to provide a systematic and automated response to cybersecurity 

breaches and network and system outages. The committee recognizes the potential benefit of implementing automation in support 

of a layered defensive strategy that includes logical segmentation 

of networks within the data center (microsegmentation) and of 

using automation in data and application protection. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 

2019, on the Department’s long-term plan for utilizing such automation capabilities and current fielding strategy. 

369 

Modular array for the direct distribution of integrated energy on small satellites 

The space industry is currently undergoing a substantial transformation as next-generation, smaller, low-cost satellites become 

increasingly available. These small satellites are capable of being 

quickly launched in response to a rapidly emerging need or threat. 

Unfortunately, key subsystems are not yet fully developed, thus 

hampering the wide-scale deployment of small satellites. Conventional satellite technology relies on the manufacturing and assembly of three independent subsystems for power: (1) solar panels, (2) 

a battery pack to store the solar energy, and (3) power electronics. 

Each of these subsystems is manufactured independently of one another and then fitted together at an integrator. The committee is 

interested in better understanding if combining the three subsystems into one single system will result in lower production costs 

and increased performance. In doing so, modular, deployable solar 

arrays have significant potential to accelerate the deployment of 

small satellites for critical Department of Defense missions. 

The committee therefore encourages the Air Force to explore 

modular arrays and utilize high strain composites and novel electric propulsion systems to reduce the cost and improve the performance of small satellites. The committee directs the Air Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on new 

small satellite power generation initiatives within 60 days. 

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Program 

Executive Office staffing 

The committee commends the Air Force’s efforts to fully staff the 

Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications (NC3) Program 

Executive Office at Hanscom Air Force Base. Timely upgrade of the 

NC3 program is critical to assure continued and resilient security 

of the national command authority. The committee encourages the 

Air Force to use all congressionally-approved flexible hiring authorities and incentives to attract qualified candidates to these positions. 

On-orbit satellite servicing technology 

The committee believes that satellite servicing could have promising applications for the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Air Force to provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2018, on 

a plan regarding the applicability of satellite servicing capabilities. 

The briefing shall include: a prioritized list, with accompanying rationale, of specific operational and planned Department of Defense 

assets that could benefit from satellite servicing missions; an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of ensuring that future 

national security space satellites and spacecraft are compatible 

with commercial in-orbit servicing capabilities; and a discussion of 

whether and how to integrate satellite servicing capabilities as an 

integral part of operational resilience into the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System for identifying requirements, the 

Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System for allocating resourcing and budgeting, and the Defense Acquisition System for developing and buying items or services. 

370 

Portable satellite data receiver suites for deployed 

warfighters 

The committee notes that the United States Air Force Research 

Laboratory’s (AFRL) Small Business Initiative Research has provided funding for the development of a unique satellite communication receive suite for warfighters in need of reliable, portable connection to the Global Broadcast System (GBS). The committee is 

aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Program Office 

now includes these portable receive suites as an approved solution 

for receive technology with Military Satellite Communications on 

the existing GBS network. The committee encourages the DOD and 

the Air Force to ensure that these suites are made available to the 

warfighter. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force as 

the executive agent to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the strategy for GBS man-portable receive 

suites no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

Review of connected devices on military installations 

The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to identify and 

address risks related to servicemembers’ use of personal devices 

while deployed—especially with respect to the potential tracking or 

identification of sensitive locations and the possibility that this information is stored in foreign data centers. The committee also 

urges the Department of Defense to evaluate respective foreign 

governments’ ability to access information from U.S. 

servicemembers’ personal devices during their deployment, the privacy protections and legal processes available to affected persons, 

and educational and directive measures that the Department could 

take to minimize these vulnerabilities. 

Space Rapid Capabilities Office 

The committee notes that the Air Force’s budget request indicates a full embrace of the need to rapidly develop and field new 

space capabilities in order to outpace the threat in 2025 and dominate in 2028. The newly re-designated Space Rapid Capabilities Office (Space RCO) will serve to meet this aggressive goal and 

timeline and will seek to replicate the culture and processes of the 

current Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. The additional funding 

requested will enable the Space RCO to quickly meet new billeting 

requirements under consideration and will allow the Space RCO to 

accelerate projects that are considered urgent by the Air Force and 

Joint Forces Command. 

The committee continues to recognize the need to develop a more 

responsive and resilient space architecture and supports the vision 

of the Space Rapid Capabilities Office to rapidly field new space capabilities. The committee is concerned, however, that there is a 

lack of Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) 

space that can be utilized by potential partners near the Air 

Force’s Space RCO. Partnerships with commercial aerospace, including non-traditional and startup aerospace companies, will enable the Space RCO to carry out its mission to rapidly deploy assets to space. The committee directs the Air Force Space Command 

to assess within 180 days of enactment the need and, if appropriate, to submit a plan to the congressional defense committees for 

371 

SCIF space adjacent to or near the Space RCO, which could also 

be used by appropriately cleared commercial partners in support of 

Space RCO missions. The plan should include input from the Space 

RCO, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Space Command, and other customers, including business entities that may 

utilize the new SCIF space. 

Transition of the Strategic Automatic Control and Communications System to the Navy Nova Communications 

System 

The committee understands that the Air Force is currently considering various modifications to the existing Strategic Automatic 

Control and Communications System (SACCS), which is a critical 

program within the nuclear command, control, and communications 

enterprise as the principal means for transmission of data and 

emergency action messages to Air Force locations around the 

world. The committee is concerned that various connected systems 

will not be replaced in a timely manner without disruption of the 

mission. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 

2019, containing a plan with: (1) Detailed timelines to transition 

parts of the SACCS mission to the Navy Nova messaging system; 

(2) The timeline for the replacement of the Promina router technology, including date and location; (3) The vulnerabilities in the 

transmission of data as SACCS front end systems are replaced by 

the Nova system; and (4) The Air Force’s plans to mitigate those 

vulnerabilities. 

United States-North Korea nuclear and missile threat reduction 

The committee continues to monitor the progress of talks between the United States and North Korea. The committee is aware 

that North Korean nuclear and missile programs, both of which 

pose significant unresolved threats to the United States and our allies, have substantial physical infrastructure and significant 

human capital associated with them and that North Korea remains 

heavily involved in illegal trade. The committee is also aware of the 

history of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which provided, and continues to provide, funding and expertise to partner 

governments in the former Soviet Union to secure and eliminate 

weapons of mass destruction at the source. 

Given the nature of North Korean threats and the scope of effort 

that would be required to reduce them, the committee directs the 

Department of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees no later than March 29, 2019, a report, in consultation 

with the Department of Energy (DOE), on the estimate of resources 

that would be required for the denuclearization of North Korea and 

on how the DOE plans to moderate potential nuclear and missile 

proliferation through transfer of technology, materials, and scientific know-how. 

(373) 

TITLE XVII—COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN 

INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 

Short title (sec. 1701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

short title of this section as ‘‘The Foreign Investment Risk Review 

Modernization Act of 2018.’’ 

Sense of Congress (sec. 1702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress regarding the benefits of foreign investment 

in the United States and continuing the United States’ commitment to open and fair investment policy, the shifting threats to national security and the need to modernize The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and export controls 

to address those threats, the critical role of CFIUS in protecting 

national security and need for adequate resources and for more robust international outreach to allies to help them establish their 

own foreign investment screening regimes, the need to collaborate 

with allies to develop stronger multilateral export controls, and additional factors CFIUS may consider in reviewing transactions. 

Definitions (sec. 1703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to update terms pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) statute and add several 

new terms. This provision would expand the purview of CFIUS by 

explicitly adding four new types of covered transactions, including: 

(1) Any non-passive investment by a foreign person in any U.S. 

critical technology or critical infrastructure company; (2) Any 

change in a foreign investor’s rights regarding a U.S. business; (3) 

Any other transaction, transfer, agreement or arrangement designed to circumvent/evade CFIUS; and (4) The purchase, lease, or 

concession by or to a foreign person of certain real estate in close 

proximity to military or other sensitive national security facilities. 

This provision would also allow CFIUS to exempt investments from 

countries meeting certain criteria from the new covered transactions. 

Acceptance of written notices (sec. 1704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1)(c)(i) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public 

Law 81–774) to update the rules governing the acceptance of written notices. 

374 

Inclusion of partnership and side agreements in notice (sec. 

1705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to require that any written notice or filing to include copies of all related partnership agreements, integration agreements, 

or other side agreements relating to transactions, including any related to the transfer of intellectual property. 

Declarations for certain covered transactions (sec. 1706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to create declarations that would serve as light filings, limited to five pages in length, that must be filed in advance of completing the transaction. This provision would allow any party to 

voluntarily file a declaration as an alternative to submitting a notice and would also require parties to file a declaration for certain 

investments where a foreign government has a substantial interest. 

Stipulations regarding transactions (sec. 1707) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1)(C) of the Defense Production Act (Public Law 81– 

774) to allow all parties to a transaction to stipulate, in a notice 

or a declaration, that is a covered transaction and, if so, that it is 

also a foreign government-controlled transaction. 

Authority for unilateral initiation of reviews (sec. 1708) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to confirm the circumstances under which the Committee 

on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) may unilaterally initiate a review, as well as how a transaction attains safe harbor status. 

Timing for reviews and investigations (sec. 1709) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to gives the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 

States (CFIUS) extra time to review each transaction by extending 

the overall review period from 30 days to 45 days and authorizes 

CFIUS to extend any investigation for one 30-day period in extraordinary circumstances, at the request of the head of a lead 

agency. 

Monitoring of non-notified and non-declared transactions 

(sec. 1710) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

United States to establish a mechanism to identify any covered 

transactions for which a notice or declaration has not been filed 

and on which information is reasonably available. 

375 

Submission of certifications to Congress (sec. 1711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(3)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to enhance congressional oversight by requiring the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to submit its certifications regarding transactions to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Analysis by Director of National Intelligence (sec. 1712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(b)(4) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) to require the Director of National Intelligence, for each 

National Security Threat Assessment (NSTA), to identify any recognized intelligence collection gaps, update the NSTA upon require 

by a lead agency for any past cleared transaction involving a mitigation agreement, and submit the NSTA to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence after conclusion of action by the Committee on Foreign 

Investment in the United States. 

Information sharing (sec. 1713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(c) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to enhance collaboration and coordination with United States 

allies and partners by allowing the disclosure of information to any 

domestic or foreign governmental entity, under the direction of the 

chairperson, if necessary for national security and pursuant to appropriate confidentiality and classification arrangements, or when 

the parties have consented for information to be disclosed to third 

parties. 

Action by the President (sec. 1714) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to confirm the authority of the President to suspend or prohibit a transition or require divestment when necessary to protect 

national security. 

Judicial review (sec. 1715) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to clarify that civil action challenges against Committee on 

Foreign Investment in the United States actions and findings may 

only be brought in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Membership and staff of Committee (sec. 1716) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to clarify the rules that apply to the appointment and hiring 

of members and staff of the Committee on Foreign Investment in 

the United States. 

376 

Actions by the Committee to address national security risks 

(sec. 1717) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to grant the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 

States (CFIUS) the authority to suspend a transaction during a review or investigation, use mitigation agreements and conditions to 

address situations where the parties have chosen to abandon a 

transaction without a presidential order, and impose interim mitigation agreements and conditions for national security risks posed 

by completed transactions while they are undergoing CFIUS review. 

Modification of annual report and other reporting requirements (sec. 1718) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 

States (CFIUS) to include in its annual report a description of the 

outcomes of any review sand investigations that year, including 

whether a mitigation agreement was entered into or condition imposed and whether the President took any action. 

Certification of notices and information (sec. 1719) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721(n) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81– 

774) to require that each notice submitted to the Committee on 

Foreign Investment in the United States be accompanied by a written statesmen from the parties certifying that the notice or information is accurate, complete, and compliant with the rules. 

Implementation plans (sec. 1720) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to develop implementation plans for carrying out relevant sections of 

this Title and to submit them to Congress within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Assessment of need for additional resources for Committee 

(sec. 1721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to determine whether and to what extent the expansion 

of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’ 

(CFIUS) responsibilities would necessitate additional resources for 

CFIUS and its members to perform their functions, and include the 

request for any such additional resources for each member agency 

in the annual budget requests to Congress. 

Funding (sec. 1722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–774) 

to establish a fund for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

United States. 

377 

Centralization of certain Committee functions (sec. 1723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–774) 

to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to centralize certain 

functions of the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United 

States (CFIUS) to include monitoring non-notified and non-declared 

transactions, within the Department of Treasury to enhance 

CFIUS interagency coordination and collaboration. 

Conforming amendments (sec. 1724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–774) 

to make technical and conforming changes to the statute. 

Requirements to identify and control the export of emerging and foundational technologies (sec. 1725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

interagency process led by the President to identify emerging and 

foundational technologies that are not currently subject to export 

controls and establishes an interagency process to control such 

technologies. 

Export control enforcement authority (sec. 1726) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enhance and 

harmonize the Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 

export control enforcement authorities with those authorities granted special agents in other law enforcement and investigative agencies by allowing BIS to engage in overseas investigations and undercover penetration activities and also appropriately protects confidentiality of information. 

Prohibition on modification of civil penalties under export 

control and sanctions laws (sec. 1727) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81–774) 

that would prohibit the President from modifying any civil penalty 

implemented by the Government of the United States with respect 

to a Chinese telecommunications company pursuant to a determination that the company has violated and export control or sanctions law of the United States until the dates that is 30 days after 

the President makes a certification to the appropriate congressional 

committees. 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security 

(sec. 1728) 

The committee recommends a provision that would rename the 

position of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security to more properly align the position title with the organization 

and role. 

378 

Limitation on cancellation of designation of Secretary of the 

Air Force as Department of Defense Executive Agent for 

a certain Defense Production Act program (sec. 1729) 

The committee recommends a provision that would bar the Department of Defense from making any change to the Secretary of 

the Air Force acting as the program manager or executive agent 

under Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 

81–774) until Congress explicitly authorizes such a change. 

Review of and report on certain defense technologies critical to the United States maintaining superior military 

capabilities (sec. 1730) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report to Congress, no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, from the Secretary of Defense and the Director 

of National Intelligence on key United States industries and research and development activities critical to maintaining a national 

security technology capability, where over the next five years it is 

anticipated a domestic industrial base shortfall will exist and domestic industry cannot or will not provide the needed capacity in 

a timely manner without assistance authorized in existing statutory authorities enacted for such purposes. 

Briefing on information from transactions reviewed by 

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 

relating to foreign efforts to influence democratic institutions and processes (sec. 1731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Treasury, no later than 60 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, to provide a briefing to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Service of the House of Representatives. 

Effective date (sec. 1732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

date of applicability of the provision contained within this title. 

Severability (sec. 1733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

any provision of this title is held to be invalid, the remaining provisions and the application of that provision to other persons shall 

not be affected. 

(379) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the Defense Agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement the decisions made in prior base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in division 

B of this Act and summarize that funding by account. The fiscal year 2019 budget requested $11.4 billion for military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $9.4 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.6 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, $267.5 million for base 

closure activities, and $171.1 million for the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization Security Investment Program. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $11.4 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continued commitment to invest in 

the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2019.’’ 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2023, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2023, whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an effective date for titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of October 

1, 2018, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

(381) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.0 billion for military construction and $707.2 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2019. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction for the Army and $707.2 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2019. 

Further details on projects authorized can be found in section 

2101 and section 4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional $107.6 million for many of these projects. The authorized 

amount is listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2019. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active component of the Army. The state 

list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for two projects until October 1, 2019, or the date 

of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2020, whichever is later. 

382 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2016 

project (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization of a project authorized by section 2101 of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of 

Public Law 114–92) until October 1, 2023, or the date of enactment 

of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2024, whichever is later. 

(383) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.5 billion for military construction and $419.1 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2019. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.6 billion for military construction for the Navy and $419.1 million for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2019. 

Further details on projects authorized can be found in section 

2201 and section 4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional 

$304.8 million for many of these projects. The authorized amounts 

are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing units of 

the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed $16.6 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active components of 

the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

(385) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.7 billion for military construction and $395.7 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2019. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.8 billion for military construction for the Air Force and $395.7 

million for family housing for the Air Force for fiscal year 2019. 

Further details on projects authorized can be found in section 

2301 and section 4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction requirements and has included an additional $149.2 million for many 

of these projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Air Force for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family housing units 

of the Department of the Air Force in an amount not to exceed 

$75.2 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also provide an overall 

limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active component of the Air Force. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

386 

Modification of authority to carry out certain phased 

project authorized in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 

(sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3679) for Royal Air Force Croughton, for 

JIAC Consolidation Phase 1, the authorization contained in the 

table in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114–92; 129 

Stat. 1153) for Croughton Royal Air Force, for Joint Intelligence 

Analysis Complex (JIAC) Consolidation Phase 2, and the authorization contained in the table in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2697) for Royal Air Force Croughton, for 

JIAC Consolidation Phase 3, to change the location to United Kingdom, Unspecified. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2017 project (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public 

Law 114–328) for construction of a basic military training recruit 

dormitory at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, to include a 26,537 

square meter dormitory. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2018 project (sec. 2307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority contained in section 2301(a) of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 

115–91) for the construction of a cyberwork facility at the United 

States Air Force Academy, Colorado, to include a facility of up to 

4,462 square meters. 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 

projects (sec. 2308) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out certain military construction 

projects using funds available for research, development, test, and 

evaluation. 

(387) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.7 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies for 

fiscal year 2019. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.4 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies for 

fiscal year 2019. 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program 

(sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy resilience and conservation projects. The budget request included $150.0 million for the 

Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP). 

The committee recommends an increase of $84.4 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the Defense Agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2019. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 

the amount authorized for military construction and family housing 

projects for the defense agencies. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for four projects until October 1, 2019, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2020, whichever is later. 

388 

Authorization of certain fiscal year 2018 project (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 105–91) by authorizing the 

Fort Bliss Blood Processing Center for $8,300,000. 

(389) 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $171.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends the requested 

amount. 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $171.1 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2019. 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to accept four military construction projects 

totaling $518.6 million from the Republic of Korea as in-kind contributions. 

(391) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $467.4 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019 

for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $661.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019 for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list 

table included in this report. 

Further details on projects authorized can be found in the tables 

in this title and section 4601 of this Act. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded 

military construction requirements and has included an additional 

$126.0 million for many of these projects. The authorized amounts 

are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

392 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-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 2019 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2016 project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of Public 

Law 114–92) for construction of a Reserve Training Center Complex at Dam Neck, Virginia, to authorize the construction at Joint 

Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Story, Virginia. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2018 project (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization in section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–91) 

for additions and alterations to the National Guard Readiness Center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to include the construction of a new 

readiness center. Additionally, if a new readiness center is constructed, this provision would limit the amount available for its 

construction to the previously authorized $15.0 million. 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 

project (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to carry out a certain military construction 

project and acquire approximately 8.5 acres of land in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania using unobligated Navy military construction reserve 

funds. The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy 

to provide the relevant information in accordance with section 

2851(c) of title 10, United States Code, regarding the project and 

notify the congressional defense committees if it becomes necessary 

to exceed the estimated project cost, in accordance with section 

2853 of title 10, United States Code. 

(393) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $267.5 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends 

$267.5 million for these efforts. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that prohibits the Department of Defense from conducting another base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round. The committee notes that although the Department of Defense did not request authorization to conduct a 

BRAC round in the request for fiscal year 2019, the Department 

is focusing its efforts this year on studying facility optimization. 

The committee is encouraged by these efforts and looks forward to 

reviewing these results prior to the request for any future BRAC 

round. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aligning base realignment and closure goals with infrastructure 

The committee recognizes that in 2005 the Department of Defense implemented a plan for Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC). The Secretary of Defense identified three goals for the 

2005 Base Realignment and Closure: (1) Transform the military; 

(2) Foster jointness; and (3) Reduce excess infrastructure to 

produce cost savings. The committee recognizes the efforts of the 

Department since that time and the efforts of communities across 

the United States in the relocation of military service members and 

units. The committee believes that the Department of Defense 

must keep the promises that it made during the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure in regards to its current property, facilities, 

394 

and training spaces, as our military and associated communities 

are growing and modernizing based on these 2005 metrics. 

The condition of our bases and surrounding communities, along 

with the welfare of our personnel and serviceability of our equipment, remains a key component to the readiness of our military. 

The Department must also continue improving existing infrastructure and pursuing military construction projects that effectively 

meet the demands of our future force, as opposed to asking this 

committee for a future complete overhaul of its posture at home. 

The committee finally notes that this Act prohibits the Department 

of Defense from conducting an additional BRAC round. 

(395) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Additional authority to obtain architectural and engineering services and construction design for defense laboratory modernization pilot program (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to extend the pilot program for the use 

of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds for 

military construction projects until 2025 and clarify that RDT&E 

funds may be used to obtain architectural and engineering services 

and carry out construction design. 

Modification of contract authority for acquisition, construction, or furnishing of test facilities and equipment (sec. 

2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2353(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority 

for the contract of a military department to provide for the acquisition or construction of facilities and equipment, by either the government or the contractor, that the secretary of the military department concerned determines to be necessary for the performance of a contract for research, development, or both. 

The committee believes that the current Air Force Instruction 

(AFI) approval process for acquisition or construction projects seeking to use the authority in section 2353 of title 10, United States 

Code, does not adequately address construction funded through 

contracts for research, development, or both. The addition of language to AFIs pertinent to acquisition and construction of facilities 

and equipment authorized by section 2353 of title 10, United States 

Code, is necessary for a more effective and seamless implementation of this authority. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to issue a revised AFI that better supports the use of section 2353 

of title 10, United States Code, and to brief the committee not later 

than September 30, 2018, on the results of a review of the authorities that support the acquisition or construction of facilities and 

equipment for research and development contracts, the supporting 

AFIs to carry out such projects, and any plans to update the AFI 

to better utilize the existing authorities of Research and Development Contracts. 

396 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend subsection (h) of section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 from 2019 to 2020 and limit the funding authority to $50,000,000. 

Unspecified minor military construction projects related to 

revitalization and recapitalization of Defense Industrial 

Base Facilities (sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a pilot program authority until 2023 for unspecified minor military construction projects of $6.0 million in support of defense industrial base 

facilities. 

The committee recognizes the need to modernize defense industrial base facilities in order to support the modernization of individual weapons systems. The flexibility afforded by the use of funds 

in unspecified minor construction projects would allow installation 

commanders to quickly adapt to changing needs and requirements, 

especially as depots and other facilities historically face difficulty 

in competition for military construction funds. 

Congressional oversight of projects carried out pursuant to 

laws other than Military Construction Authorization 

Acts (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2802(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to include all congressional defense committees in any notification requirements set 

forth by any law other than a Military Construction Authorization 

Act. 

Subtitle B—Project Management and Oversight Reforms 

Updates and modifications to Department of Defense Form 

1391, Unified Facilities Criteria, and military installation master plans (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) Form 1391 to include a disclosure of 

whether or not a proposed project falls within or partially within 

a 100-year floodplain and, if so, a specific risk mitigation plan. The 

provision would also require a process for risk analysis and a report on planned mitigation measures for buildings, require disclosure as to whether a project was included in the prior year’s future 

years defense program, require an energy study or life cycle analysis, amend the United Facilities Criteria to ensure building risk 

data are incorporated into planned designs and modifications, require consideration of energy and climate resiliency efforts in major 

military installation master plans, amend the definition of military 

installation resilience, and include threats to military installation 

resilience for adjustment and diversification assistance. 

397 

Work in Process Curve charts and outlay tables for military 

construction projects (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to include as an 

addendum to the 1391 forms submitted with the budget request for 

each fiscal year a Work in Process Curve chart and monthly outlay 

table for funding, obligations, and outlay figures for any military 

construction project over $35,000,000. 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Land exchange, Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona (sec. 

2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of the Air Force permissive authority to convey 58 acres 

on Air Force Plant 44, Arizona to Tucson International Airport and 

the ability to construct new explosives storage facilities to replace 

the existing facility that would be conveyed with this provision 

while ensuring that the new explosives storage facilities is within 

the end-of-runway clear zone. 

Land conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of the Air Force permissive authority to convey 80 acres 

of land adjacent to Eglin Air Force Base to the Air Force Enlisted 

Village. The committee notes that, should the Secretary invoke this 

authority, the conveyance would include a reversionary interest 

clause. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Commemoration of Freedman’s Village (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow an 

easement of approximately 0.1 acre of land outside Arlington National Cemetery for the purpose of recognizing Freedman’s Village. 

Strategic plan to improve capability of Department of Defense training ranges and installations (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, working through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to develop a comprehensive 

strategic plan for using existing authorities to address training constraints to improve operations training capabilities requiring training enablers available in and outside the United States. The committee notes that this would be an annual report with a sunset of 

2022 and would replace the existing Sustainable Range Report, 

which is set to expire in 2018. 

Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation 

program (sec. 2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 160 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to participate in a program to mitigate the environVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00431 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
398 

mental effects of defense activities on Indian lands and culturally 

connected locations. 

Defense community infrastructure pilot program (sec. 2834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States Code, by granting the Secretary 

of Defense permissive authority to make grants, conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement funds to assist State and local 

governments in addressing deficiencies in community infrastructure. The provision would require that the State or local government contribute not less than 30 percent of the funding for the 

community infrastructure project. The authority set forth in this 

provision would expire on September 30, 2023. 

Representation of installation interests in negotiations and 

proceedings with carriers and other public utilities (sec. 

2835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 501(c) of title 40, United States Code, by requiring that any 

representative of the General Services Administration that will 

represent a military installation in any negotiation must first notify the senior mission commander of the installation and solicit 

and represent the interest of the installation as determined by the 

installation’s senior mission commander. 

White Sands Missile Range land enhancements (sec. 2836) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

White Sands National Park and abolish White Sands National 

Monument. The establishment of a national park would increase 

the public recognition of the significant resources of White Sands. 

This provision would modify the boundary of White Sands National 

Park and convey 3,737 acres of land from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. This provision would also convey 

8,592 acres of land from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary 

of the Interior. 

Authority to transfer funds for construction of Indian River 

Bridge (sec. 2837) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense permissive authority to transfer up to 50 percent of the shared costs for the construction of the Indian River 

Bridge to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of military structures in permafrost areas 

The committee remains concerned that climate-related events are 

already being observed at Department of Defense (DOD) installations and that the effects of which will continue to have an impact 

on both the security environment in which military forces operate 

and on DOD infrastructure worldwide. For instance, the committee 

notes that melting permafrost in Alaska had led to costly and unexpected repairs of facilities. Additionally, the committee is conVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
399 

cerned that a failure to address identified deficiencies can over 

time put DOD military readiness, mission capability, military construction, and valuable taxpayer resources at risk. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report with an assessment of 

military structures in permafrost area no later than 180 days after 

the enactment of this Act. The assessment shall include: (1) An inventory of all military structures currently built in permafrost 

areas, including Alaska, Greenland, and northern European countries to include all planned new military construction in permafrost 

areas for the next 4 fiscal years; (2) An inventory of which structures at Eielson Air Force Base, if any, are experiencing stresses 

and impacts associated with melting permafrost foundation degradation to include proposed repairs or new construction; (3) An explanation of how the DOD determines what constitutes a permafrost area; (4) A description of the process by which the DOD determines whether a deep foundation is necessary in a permafrost 

area, including cost factors; (5) An assessment of how design and 

construction standards account for foundation integrity in the 

event of permafrost degradation; (6) A description of the cost difference between building on standard foundations and deep foundations associated with permafrost degradation to include repairs 

over the life of the project for both; and (7) Any other information 

or recommendations the Assistant Secretary of Defense determines 

appropriate. 

Encouraging the use of existing authorities for construction 

of future National Guard Readiness Center 

The committee recognizes that the South Carolina National 

Guard plans to construct the Summerville National Guard Readiness Center in fiscal year 2021 and commends the South Carolina 

National Guard for working to acquire Federal land with Joint 

Base Charleston in submission of a Base Action Request for approval. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 

leverage existing authorities to make land available at Joint Base 

Charleston, South Carolina to the Secretary of the Army for the 

purpose of constructing a permanent National Guard Readiness 

Center. Further, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 

Army to use his authority to issue a revocable license to the South 

Carolina National Guard for the purpose of constructing a permanent National Guard Readiness Center on the land made available 

if the Secretary determines the license to be in the interest of the 

Army. 

Excess capacity estimates 

The committee notes that a report by the Comptroller General of 

the United States titled ‘‘Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve the Accuracy of its Excess Capacity Estimates’’ (GAO–18– 

230) found that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 2017 excess capacity analysis ‘‘does not have the accuracy and analytical sufficiency to provide Congress with a reasonable estimate of the actual 

excess capacity within DOD.’’ Additionally, the Comptroller General found that the DOD ‘‘used a baseline for the analysis that did 

400 

not fully take into account changes in infrastructure needs since 

1989, assumptions in its analysis that are not reasonable, and 

methods that were not sufficient or implemented consistently.’’ 

The committee recognizes that DOD has been unable to conduct 

a full Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) analysis; however, 

the committee is concerned that without initial excess capacity estimates that are accurate and sufficient, the Department may not be 

providing the Congress with the information necessary to make a 

fully informed decision on a future BRAC round. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to reliably update 

the baseline used for estimating excess infrastructure capacity, 

using assumptions in estimating excess capacity that are considered realistic and credible, and develop guidance to improve the 

methods used in the analysis in order to ensure consistent implementation of DOD’s methodology to produce reliable estimates of 

excess capacity across the DOD. Additionally, the guidance shall, 

at a minimum, clearly define major installations, identify if and 

when it is appropriate to include a facility in more than one category to take into account multiple missions at the facilities, and 

provide protocols for assessing excess capacity at joint bases. The 

Assistant Secretary shall brief or report on this guidance to the 

committee not later than February 1, 2019. 

Federal land transfer for South Carolina National Guard 

The committee recognizes that the South Carolina National 

Guard intends to establish a Federal training site and commends 

the South Carolina National Guard for working with the Savannah 

River Site, Aiken, South Carolina on a potential location for the 

site. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to use existing authorities 

to make land available at the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 

Carolina to the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of establishing a Federal training site for the South Carolina National 

Guard. Further, the committee encourages the Secretary of the 

Army to use his authority to issue a revocable license to the South 

Carolina National Guard for the purpose of establishing a Federal 

training site on the land made available if the Secretary determines the license to be in the interest of the Army. 

Incremental funding of military construction projects 

The committee remains very concerned that the Department of 

Defense is unable to plan, program, or request incrementally funded military construction projects. The committee strongly believes 

that the Department should seek relief from this restrictive policy 

set forth by the Office of Management and Budget. The committee 

notes that incremental funding authority would ensure greater stability and predictability in the planning process, reduce acquisition 

costs, and enable the Department to execute more work in place on 

other infrastructure requirements in the fiscal year. Furthermore, 

the committee believes that incremental funding of large and complex military construction projects ensures continuous oversight 

and opportunities to adjust the authorization of appropriation level 

401 

for projects, should issues arise or requirements change over the 

course of construction. 

To date, the committee is not aware of any example where a 

military construction project has been left with inadequate funding 

or has not been executable as a result of an incremental funding 

approach. The committee strongly encourages and expects the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, to work with the committee, and the 

other appropriate congressional defense committees, to develop a 

framework that enables the planning, programming, budgeting, 

and execution of incrementally funded military construction 

projects. 

As reflected in the funding tables, the committee continues to believe in the military value and effective use of taxpayer funding to 

incrementally authorize appropriations for certain military construction projects. The committee notes that, as readiness is the 

Department’s number one priority, utilizing incremental funding, 

the committee was able to authorize dozens of additional projects 

including National Guard readiness centers, fire stations, barracks, 

and training ranges. As such, the authorized funding shall be immediately available and allotted to contract for the full scope of authorized military construction projects. The committee finally notes 

that executing additional infrastructure projects at a faster pace, 

while maintaining said oversight, only improves readiness. 

Installation and facilities physical security gaps 

The committee notes that the physical safety and security of Department of Defense personnel and infrastructure are paramount 

to readiness. The committee is concerned, however, that there are 

places where major Department activities are not located behind a 

fence line or other physical access barriers. The committee notes 

that such locations are essentially open to the public, putting high 

visibility concentrations of military personnel at risk. The committee recognizes that the Department must prioritize where to invest a limited pool of resources when it comes to infrastructure and 

resources. The committee encourages the Department to seek out 

innovative ways to improve physical security. However, the committee must first have a better understanding of how many installations or facilities exist without appropriate physical access barriers. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to provide a briefing no later than September 30, 2018, identifying all installations 

and locations that host more than 25 civilian employees or uniformed personnel and that lack appropriate physical access barriers. The briefing shall list each location in priority order and include a cost estimate to provide the necessary security measures at 

each location identified. 

National Maritime Intelligence Center Parking 

The committee notes that the National Maritime Intelligence 

Center (NMIC) is located on the Suitland Federal Center in 

Suitland, Maryland. The Office of Naval Intelligence is the host 

command of the NMIC, and the facility is required to provide safe 

402 

and adequate parking for all tenet commands, which include 3,700 

employees. Since 2008, parking at the NMIC has been inadequate 

due to significant facility expansion for roughly 700 new employees 

and the discovery of structural and safety deficiencies of the NMIC 

parking garage. The committee notes that Navy engineers have assessed that the useful life of the garage will expire between 2021 

and 2023. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a planned strategy to correct these deficiencies to 

the committee no later than March 1, 2019. 

Process for prioritizing funding and identifying facilities for 

demolition 

The committee remains concerned about the quality and condition of many Department of Defense (DOD) facilities around the 

globe, despite the Department’s receiving significant increases in 

funding for facilities sustainment restoration and modernization 

(FSRM) in recent years to tackle the challenge of maintaining facilities and addressing infrastructure maintenance backlogs. As 

such, the committee strongly encourages the Department to increase investments in its FSRM accounts in order to match its 

rhetoric and accepted level of risk to date. Additionally, the committee strongly urges the DOD to ensure that its installation master plans include a comprehensive restoration and modernization 

project plan that uses existing conversion authorities to the maximum extent practicable and identifies installation deficiencies detrimental to the mission. 

The committee is also aware that the DOD has sought FSRM 

funding for the demolition of facilities that no longer meet operational requirements and, in some cases, hinder readiness across 

its installations. The committee has received testimony in previous 

years about the cumulative negative impacts of poorly maintained 

facilities on the overall readiness of the Department. 

The committee is concerned that only a small amount of its 

FSRM is programmed for the demolition of aged and no longer usable facilities. Demolition of these facilities is important to sustaining readiness for the warfighter and reducing potential health 

and safety risks at DOD installations. However, the committee is 

concerned about how the DOD will prioritize funding and identify 

buildings and facilities for demolition. As such, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, 

and Environment to report to the congressional defense committees 

no later than March 1, 2019, on the Department’s process to: (1) 

Identify buildings and facilities for demolition; (2) Prioritize 

demolitions across the DOD enterprise; and (3) Provide a list, by 

military service, to include the Reserve and Guard components, of 

buildings and facilities (by installation) that will be demolished 

with fiscal year 2019 funding and could be demolished across the 

future years defense program if additional resources were to become available. 

Review of Army Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization 

The committee notes that the Army Corps of Engineers has established nine Centers of Standardization for military construction 

403 

projects, whose purpose is to achieve savings and benefits in the 

programming, design, and construction of Army facilities. The committee understands that the intent of these Centers is to improve 

facilities design quality, reduce design and construction costs and 

time, and reduce change orders during construction, among other 

things. 

However, the committee notes that a Government Accountability 

Office report, published March 27, 2018, titled ‘‘Defense Infrastructure: Action Needed to Increase the Reliability of Construction Cost 

Estimates’’ (GAO–18–101), found that Department of Defense guidance for construction projects does not fully incorporate the necessary steps for developing reliable cost estimates. Additionally, 

projects consistently face cost overruns and schedule delays. The 

committee is encouraged by the efforts by the Corps of Engineers 

to ensure that facilities are constructed at the lowest cost while 

still trying to ensure mission capability for users. However, the 

committee is concerned that trends indicate that the Centers are 

not achieving their stated goal. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the effectiveness of the Centers of Standardization 

no later than April 1, 2019. The report should address at a minimum the following information: (1) To what extent the Army 

Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization achieve their stated 

objectives; (2) The metrics that the Corps of Engineers uses to 

measure achievements thought to be derived from the Centers; (3) 

To what extent their measurement techniques comport with best 

practices for such measurement; (4) What potential liability the 

Centers incur in the event that problems develop during construction; (5) To what extent the Departments of the Navy and Air 

Force have comparable Centers or other procedures for achieving 

standardization and, if they do, how effectively the lessons learned 

are shared; and (6) Any additional information that the Comptroller General deems relevant. 

Standoff weapons facility project at Andersen Air Force 

Base 

The committee notes that Andersen Air Force Base enables a 

heavy bomber presence in the Pacific Area of Operations. An integral aspect of this operation is the ability to load munitions rapidly 

onto bombers using the large rotary launchers associated with 

these aircraft. The committee is supportive of efforts to develop a 

standoff weapons facility at Andersen Air Force Base that will contain the necessary high bays and heavy loading equipment to facilitate the storage and loading of these rotary launchers and to facilitate timely load out of munitions into bombers. 

(405) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included $921.4 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019 for overseas contingency operations. The committee recommends $852.4 million for military construction in fiscal year 2019 for overseas contingency operations. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Army military construction project for fiscal year 2019 for overseas 

contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy military construction projects for fiscal year 2019 for overseas 

contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2019 for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Defense Agencies military construction projects for fiscal year 2019 for 

overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed 

on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction in the overseas contingency 

operations account for fiscal year 2019. 

(407) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the activities of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s defense environmental clean-up activities. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s other defense activities. 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy activities. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Clarification of roles and authorities of National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

roles and authorities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The committee has been outspoken in its concern about diversion 

between the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) 

defense programs and the requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD). Through life extension and major alterations programs, production capacity, and research into future weapons technology, the NNSA executes its highest responsibility, the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. The committee therefore sees the 

linkage between NNSA and DOD as being enormously important 

and is committed to the preservation of the provider-customer relationship. 

408 

The appropriate balance in the relationship of the NNSA with 

the broader Department of Energy (DOE) is critical in this respect. 

The NNSA was established in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) as a semi-autonomous organization within the DOE. The Congress recognized that 

the nuclear production and maintenance mission required some 

cabinet-level representation and saw benefits in its cohabitation 

with the atomic energy and national laboratories infrastructure in 

the DOE. However, it was wary of the influence of the DOE’s competing interests on the weapons programs, which are intended to 

meet the requirements of the DOD. 

The committee believes that these fears have been realized to an 

extent. Though the NNSA has so far provided the nuclear weapons 

that the DOD needs for the nuclear deterrent, delays and cost overruns in the NNSA’s weapons programs and recent disagreements 

about major programs associated with weapons activities evince 

the tensions inherent in the current organizational structure. The 

committee is not alone in this opinion. The November 2014 Augustine-Mies Panel found ‘‘that the relationships among NNSA, the 

Secretary of Energy, and the DOE headquarters are not properly 

aligned with mission needs today, and are in need of major reform’’ 

and that flawed DOE organizational and process features have 

damaged the NNSA’s ability to carry out its mission. The January 

2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ‘‘National 

Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Management of the Nation’s Nuclear Programs’’ (GAO 07– 

26), corroborated the panel’s findings: ‘‘[A]lthough some NNSA programs have set up procedures for interacting with DOE, other programs have not, resulting in organizational conflict’’ (page 34). In 

2009, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic 

Posture of the United States found that ‘‘the governance structure 

of the NNSA is not delivering the needed results. This governance 

structure should be changed.’’ The commission concluded that ‘‘it is 

time to consider fundamental changes.’’ 

The committee is frustrated that so many reports, studies, and 

panels have come to the same conclusions for more than 15 years, 

yet no structural change has been implemented. The statement of 

managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), out of which the Augustine-Mies panel was authorized, expressed nearly identical concerns: ‘‘. . . the status quo is not working and must not be continued. The weaknesses of the current system, including an overly bureaucratic system, weak accountability, ineffective oversight, insufficient program and budget expertise, and poor contract management have been repeatedly demonstrated . . .’’ The conferees asserted that ‘‘[f]urther slippage in project schedules is unacceptable, 

and could undermine the credibility of the nation’s nuclear deterrent.’’ The conferees concluded with the hope that the creation of 

the advisory panel that would become Augustine-Mies would ‘‘provide a bipartisan solution to fix this system.’’ The committee notes 

that project schedules have continued to slip in the 5 years since 

the writing of that statement, among other continued challenges, 

and few of the recommendations of the panel have been adopted. 

409 

Therefore, in order to realign the immediate responsibilities of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration and reinforce its autonomy within the Department of Energy, the committee recommends a provision that would amend the Department of Energy 

Organization Act (Public Law 95–91) as it relates to the NNSA, the 

National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106–65), 

and the Atomic Energy Defense Act (Public Law 107–314) to empower the NNSA within the DOE. The provision would make the 

Administrator of the NNSA responsible for a number of duties currently assigned to the Secretary of Energy, clarify the lines of authority at the DOE to emphasize the role of Administrator, and expand the remit and authority of the Administrator in statute. The 

provision would implement a number of recommendations of the 

Augustine-Mies panel and other studies, including those regarding 

the formulation of NNSA-specific procedure and regulation wherever possible. The provision would not remove the Administrator 

from the Secretary of Energy’s lines of authority nor divorce the defense mission from the DOE’s functions, nor would it divorce health 

and safety standards at NNSA facilities from DOE regulations. Finally, the provision would repeal the statutory cap on federal employees, in order to allow the NNSA to hire at sufficient levels to 

carry out its mission. 

The committee does not intend for this provision to be interpreted as an indictment of the current Secretary of Energy or Administrator of the NNSA, who have performed admirably. Rather, 

the committee seeks to address a number of structural impediments independent of its particular operators, and, in doing so, create resilient and enduring organizations to enable the Secretary of 

Energy and the Administrator of the NNSA to carry out the Department of Energy’s defense mission. 

National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System 

(sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the personnel demonstration project carried out by the National Nuclear Security Administration since 2008. 

Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

delegation of review under section 57b of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 (Public Law 83–703), as amended (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)(2)) on a 

case-by-case basis as consistent with the national security interests 

of the United States. The provision would also require that, during 

a review under section 57b of title 42, United States Code, if such 

a request is denied, the Department of Energy be told the reasons 

for denial during interagency review or, if the review period is extended, the reason for this extension, to be reported to the congressional defense committees on an annual basis. Finally, the provision recommends the Department of Energy establish rules for civil 

fines for a violation of section 57b of title 42, United States Code. 

410 

Extension of enhanced procurement authority to manage 

supply chain risk (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 6 

years, the authority for the Secretary of Energy to take certain actions with regard to the protection of the supply chain of the Department of Energy. 

The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has used this authority in an appropriately limited fashion since it was granted in 2014. The committee believes 

it is important for the NNSA to have the same tools to protect its 

supply chain as the Department of Defense and the intelligence 

community. The committee also notes that the Comptroller General 

of the United States is currently assessing NNSA’s use of this authority as mandated by section 3113(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). The committee looks forward to the results of this assessment. 

Pilot program on conduct by Department of Energy of background reviews for access by certain individuals to national security laboratories (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program for 2 years at the Department of Energy (DOE) to 

independently conduct background reviews prior to admitting citizens of nations on the current sensitive countries list to national 

security laboratories. The provision would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Director of National Intelligence to continue to conduct background reviews under section 

4502(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2652(a)) for 

the duration of the pilot program. 

The committee understands that, under current law, the conduct 

of these reviews by the FBI often takes longer than the 15 days required by statute and requires duplication of effort between the 

FBI and the DOE. While the committee has confidence that the 

DOE’s counterintelligence capability has improved in the 2 decades 

since the current statute was enacted, the committee is concerned 

that the DOE may not currently have the capacity to take on this 

additional workload. The committee hopes that, at the end of this 

pilot program, the DOE will be able to demonstrate that it is capable of conducting the same reviews with no adverse counterintelligence outcomes and that the committee will be able to recommend 

a permanent transfer of this responsibility from the FBI to the 

DOE. 

Extension of authority for acceptance of contributions for 

acceleration of removal or security of fissile materials, 

radiological materials, and related equipment at vulnerable sites worldwide (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3132(f)(7) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) to extend the 

Secretary of Energy’s authority to accept, retain, and use contributions for the accelerated removal of and security for fissile materials, radiological materials, and related equipment at vulnerable 

sites worldwide through 2023. 

411 

Modification of limitation on development of low-yield nuclear weapons (sec. 3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make several 

findings regarding the changes in the international security environment related to nuclear forces over the last decade. The provision would also modify section 3116(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) to remove the requirement for specific authorization by the Congress 

prior to commencement of engineering development, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon. Instead, the provision 

would require that the Secretary of Energy specifically request 

funding for such a weapon in the annual budget request before 

commencing engineering development, in accordance with section 

4209(a) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2529(a)), 

which requires the Secretary to specifically request funds in the 

annual budget request for any activity related to the development 

of a new or modified nuclear weapon. 

Prohibition on use of funds for terminating activities at 

MOX facility (sec. 3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Energy from obligating or expending any funds for 

fiscal year 2019 or prior fiscal years to terminate construction and 

project support activities at the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility or to convert such facility to be used for any purpose other 

than its original mission. 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports 

Modifications to cost-benefit analyses for competition of 

management and operating contracts (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

requirement for the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees containing a cost-benefit analysis of competition 

of management and operating contracts for NNSA laboratories and 

production plants following each award of such a contract such that 

the report would be due 30 days after the transition to a new contract is complete. 

Section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the NNSA to provide this 

report. The committee notes that this section was amended to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct comprehensive reviews of these reports after the award of the Consolidated Nuclear Security contract in January 2013. The committee 

remains interested in whether the consolidation of the contracts for 

the Pantex Plant and the Y–12 National Security Complex has resulted in the cost savings expected at contract award. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a comprehensive briefing, as defined in subsection (d)(2) of section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239), as amended, of the contract awarded 

to Consolidated Nuclear Security in January of 2013. 

412 

Review of defense environmental cleanup activities (sec. 

3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to coordinate with the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on a review of the cleanup activities in the Office of Environmental Management. 

Survey of workforce of national security laboratories and 

nuclear weapons production facilities (sec. 3123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees a proposal to conduct a survey of the employees of the NNSA laboratories and production plants. 

The committee notes that several of the studies and commissions 

on the management of the NNSA over the last decade have recommended the collection and analysis of more data in order to 

monitor trends and document improvement where it exists. The 

committee believes that, because contract employees make up such 

a large percentage of the NNSA workforce, the NNSA should undertake a systematic survey program, similar to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, for staff at the labs and plants. 

Elimination of certain reports (sec. 3124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate certain reporting requirements for the Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Office. 

Implementation of Nuclear Posture Review by National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

on the implementation of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 

by the NNSA. The report would identify specific actions associated 

with the NPR, including the office of primary responsibility for 

each action and key milestones associated with it. The report would 

be required to be submitted no later than December 1, 2018. 

Budget Items 

W76–2 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $4.7 billion for directed stockpile work, of 

which $113.9 million was for the W76–1 life extension program. 

The committee understands that at the time of the compilation 

of the budget request, the Department of Defense had not yet finalized the Nuclear Posture Review, and as such the recommendations 

of that review were not included in the NNSA’s budget request. 

The committee understands that the NNSA’s preferred method for 

fielding the low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review is a modification of a 

small number of W76–1 warheads currently undergoing life extension. The amendment to the fiscal year 2019 budget request subVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:53 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 030285 PO 00000 Frm 00446 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR262.XXX SR262
413 

mitted to the Congress on April 13, 2018, requests a transfer of $65 

million from the W76–1 life extension program to the W76–2 warhead modification program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $65.0 million 

to the W76–1 life extension program line, for a total of $48.9 million, and an equivalent increase to the new W76–2 warhead modification line. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal 

The budget request for the Department of Energy included 

$120.0 million for the Yucca Mountain and Interim Storage programs, of which $30.0 million was from the Defense Nuclear Waste 

Disposal Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 

million to the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General review of domestic uranium industrial 

base 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) requires 

enriched uranium for several military purposes. To produce enriched uranium, the material is processed through a number of 

stages to concentrate and refine it. The NNSA has consistently asserted that international agreements to which the United States is 

a party prohibit the use of enriched uranium for military purposes 

if the uranium or its enrichment carry obligations for ‘‘peaceful 

use’’ under these agreements. The committee is unconvinced that 

the NNSA has thoroughly explored the possible interpretations of 

the relevant international agreements to take advantage of existing 

uranium processing capability in the United States. 

Accordingly, however, the NNSA intends to rely on the small domestic commercial uranium industry to provide uranium, technology, and facilities to produce unobligated enriched uranium that 

can be used for military purposes. The last operating enrichment 

facility that produced unobligated enriched uranium closed in 2013. 

The NNSA is in the process of evaluating new enrichment options, 

which is expected to produce a plan to construct a new domestic 

uranium enrichment facility beginning at the end of the next decade. 

Beyond enrichment, the committee is concerned that other stages 

of the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining, milling, and conversion, 

are at risk in the United States due to market conditions. The committee is also concerned that the NNSA is not appropriately planning mitigation strategies to ensure that these capabilities will be 

available to support a future domestic uranium enrichment plant. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the 

NNSA’s planning and assumptions for the future unobligated uranium industrial base. The review should include: (1) The extent to 

which the NNSA has conducted studies evaluating the uranium industrial base critical to the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle and the conclusions of these studies; (2) The extent to which the NNSA has explored possible changes to the interpretation of the international 

agreements that lead to the ‘‘peaceful use’’ restrictions on uranium; 

414 

(3) The extent to which the NNSA has developed plans for obtaining unobligated uranium services if any element of the domestic 

uranium process is disrupted; and (4) The extent to which the 

NNSA is incorporating this information into its ongoing analysis of 

alternatives for reestablishing a domestic uranium enrichment capability, including in terms of reference, selection of alternatives 

for analysis, or guiding documents for the analysis. 

The Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary briefing to 

the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 

2019, with a report to follow at a date to be agreed upon at the 

time of the briefing. 

Comptroller General review of Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

The committee notes that the Department of Energy exercised 

the waiver authority outlined in section 3121(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) 

to halt construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility. The committee further notes that this certification was received by the Congress 1 day after the House Armed Service Committee completed its mark-up and less than 2 weeks before committee mark-up in the Senate for the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. This has made it extremely difficult for 

the committees to determine the correct funding level for the program in the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, 

as the committee does not know if the certification followed the requirements for cost evaluation as called for in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the cost analyses conducted by the Secretary of Energy to support the exercise of the waiver relating to 

construction and project support activities at the MOX facility and 

the dilute and dispose alternative. This review shall determine, at 

a minimum, if the cost analyses followed best practices as required 

by section 3121(b) and shall also evaluate whether the cost analyses for the life-cycle cost estimates for both the MOX facility and 

the dilute and dispose alternative are comparable, credible, accurate, and meet appropriate costing standards for Government Accountability Office. 

A written report on the findings shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than August 31, 2018, with 

a briefing to follow. 

Comptroller General review of strategic radiation-hardened 

microelectronics 

The trustworthiness of the supply chain that provides specialized 

components for U.S. nuclear weapons must be sustained to deal 

with potential sabotage, malicious introduction of an unwanted 

function, and subversion of a function without detection. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a single radiation-hardened silicon microelectronics facility, Microsystems and 

Engineering Sciences Applications at Sandia National Laboratories, 

which relies on tools and capabilities that are no longer supported 

by manufacturers. Following a determination of mission need in 

415 

2016, the NNSA recently concluded an analysis of alternatives for 

a trusted microsystem capability to ensure that needs are met in 

the 2025–2040 timeframe. 

The committee is concerned that required critical decisions and 

planning for budget resources at the NNSA are not being made sufficiently quickly to ensure that the required flexible and responsive 

operational capability is maintained after 2025. 

The committee therefore directs the Administrator of the NNSA 

to brief the congressional defense committees no later than November 1, 2018, on the status, plans, and estimated budget requirements, including any required facility expansion or new construction, to meet the Nation’s program requirements for unique strategic radiation-hardened microsystem capabilities after 2025. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review NNSA’s efforts to recapitalize its strategic 

radiation-hardened microelectronics design and production capacity, addressing the following questions: (1) What is known about 

the extent of risks to NNSA’s supply chain, and what steps are 

being taken to address these risks in the near-term? (2) To what 

extent did NNSA’s analysis of alternatives and related cost estimates meet best practices for such studies? (3) To what extent is 

the NNSA managing radiation-hardened microelectronics as a strategic commodity? 

The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2019, with a report to follow at a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Independent review of Engineering Assessment of plutonium pit production 

In April of 2018, the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) completed an engineering assessment report on plutonium 

pit production. The report provides the Administrator’s recommended alternative for the NNSA’s plutonium capabilities. The 

proposed strategy repurposes the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site combined with expanded capabilities at Plutonium Facility-4 at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

On May 4, 2018, the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council 

(NWC) provided the written certification required by section 3141 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

(Public Law 115–91). In making the required certification accepting 

NNSA’s recommendation, the Chairman stated there are ‘‘major 

construction and certification schedule risks inherent in the plan. 

[The Department of Energy] must address these risks to preclude 

failure to meet military requirements by 2030.’’ The NWC’s certification letter went on to state, ‘‘To reduce risk, the recurring and 

non-recurring cost estimates for the recommended alternative must 

be refined prior to the next construction major milestone decision 

point, estimated to be in year 2021.’’ 

In light of the specific concerns raised by the Chairman of the 

NWC, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA, no 

later than July 1, 2018, to enter into an arrangement with a federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct 

an independent review and assessment of the soundness and validity of the estimated construction and life-cycle costs of each of the 

416 

alternatives analyzed in NNSA’s April 2018 engineering assessment report on plutonium pit production. Not later than October 

1, 2018, the report of the FFRDC shall be submitted to the Administrator of the NNSA, and, 10 days after receiving the report of the 

FFRDC, the Administrator shall submit the report to the congressional defense committees. 

Nuclear smuggling detection in Iraq 

The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to submit a report no later than March 29, 

2019, to the congressional defense committees on a plan to work 

with the Iraqi government to develop the capability to detect nuclear smuggling using both fixed and mobile systems. Such plan 

shall also include assisting Iraq in minimizing the use of isotopic 

sources where appropriate and developing the infrastructure necessary to meet regulatory requirements to safely handle and store 

such devices. 

Repackaging of Transuranic Waste Drums at the Idaho National Laboratory 

On April 11, a drum of transuranic waste ruptured at the Idaho 

National Laboratory’s Radioactive Waste Management Complex, 

resulting in spilled sludge in the facility and the contamination of 

several responding firemen with plutonium. In the immediate 

aftermath of this incident, the Department of Energy (DOE) found 

three other drums with similar contents that had also ruptured, 

and additional investigations on the cause of the event are ongoing. 

Additionally disturbing, however, is the confirmation from DOE officials that at least the initial ruptured drum had already undergone remediation to prepare it for shipment to the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant (WIPP), although it had not yet been certified for shipment. After a 2014 accident in which a transuranic waste drum 

prepared at Los Alamos National Laboratory ruptured in the WIPP 

underground, the DOE required that all of its cleanup undergo a 

complete review of waste preparation and certification procedures 

to ensure such an accident was not repeated. However, if these 

drums had not ruptured at the Idaho National Laboratory, it is 

conceivable that the incident could have occurred at the WIPP, 

causing further setbacks for the waste repository that is still recovering from the prior incident. 

Therefore the committee directs the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) to report on the repackaging of transuranic waste at 

the Idaho National Laboratory and determine the extent to which 

there are procedures in place to prevent such an incident and 

whether deficiencies exist in these procedures or their implementation that must be remedied. The GAO shall work with the committee on a date suitable to both parties for the final report with 

interim briefings on the findings. 

Review of National Nuclear Security Administration regulation 

The committee is aware that many of the commissions and reviews examining the governance and operations of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have reported complaints 

417 

about overlapping, overly restrictive, and inefficient regulation 

from the NNSA and its laboratories and plants. Some have identified this as one source of increasing costs and failures to meet mission requirements on time. The committee believes excessive regulation may also encourage haphazard enforcement by the NNSA 

and extreme risk-avoidance on the part of contractors. Without a 

more detailed understanding of exactly which practices create unnecessary burden, however, the committee believes that NNSA will 

be unable to improve its regulatory practices. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Administrator of the 

NNSA to solicit from each of its eight national security laboratories 

and plants specific regulations or sources of regulation that are 

particularly burdensome. The Administrator shall provide such 

input unedited to the congressional defense committees, along with 

input from NNSA itself, no later than March 15, 2019. These reports shall include data supporting the frequency with which negative consequences from these practices are observed and descriptions of the specific impact of each practice in areas such as: morale, recruiting, and retention; increased costs to the government; 

and damage to mission capability. The reports should also identify 

a given practice’s intended purpose and how these benefits could 

otherwise be achieved. 

The Administrator shall also provide the complete findings to the 

Comptroller General of the United States, who shall brief the congressional defense committees on the extent to which findings are 

consistent with recommendations made by other external oversight 

bodies, along with any other assessment of the report. 

Roadmap for National Nuclear Security Administration production capability improvements 

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the attention in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to infrastructure 

at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). As the 

NPR states, ‘‘[a]ll previous NPRs highlighted the need to maintain 

a modern nuclear weapons infrastructure, but the United States 

has fallen short in sustaining a modern infrastructure that is resilient and has the capacity to respond to unforeseen developments.’’ 

The committee is particularly concerned about the capacity of the 

complex’s production infrastructure, as the NNSA enters full-scale 

production on four life extension programs and begins planning for 

follow-on work as well. Resilient production infrastructure and 

workforce at the Pantex Plant, Savannah River Site, Kansas City 

National Security Campus, and Y-12 National Security Complex 

are just as critical to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent as 

laboratory infrastructure. The committee was pleased to see the 

NPR recommend that NNSA develop a ‘‘roadmap that sizes production capacity to modernization and hedging requirements’’ and is 

interested in the details of this roadmap. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA 

to submit the detailed roadmap described in the NPR to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2019, including infrastructure and staffing requirements, key milestones, 

and an assessment of any additional capacity needed at the 

418 

NNSA’s production sites in order to meet modernization and hedging requirements. 

Status of Russian nuclear security upgrades 

Recognizing the significant investment the United States made 

in the past to improving nuclear material security at dozens of 

sites in Russia, through the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) former Material Protection, Control, and Accounting 

program and related programs, the Committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to provide a report to the committee no later 

than January 1, 2019 on NNSA’s current efforts related to Russian 

nuclear security. 

In particular, the committee requests that this report focus on 

how NNSA is monitoring nuclear material security in Russia, and 

the extent to which NNSA-funded security improvements have 

been sustained over time, in light of reduced Russian cooperation. 

In addition, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to report to the committee on these issues no later 

than February 1, 2019. The Comptroller General’s report should 

address: (1) NNSA’s ability to sustain investments it has made to 

ensure that Russia’s nuclear complex and stockpiles of nuclear material remain secure; (2) How NNSA is verifying that Russia is sustaining and maintaining the nuclear material security equipment 

and technology supplied previously by the United States; (3) Any 

gaps or shortcomings that could jeopardize the sustainability of 

those security systems going forward; and (4) The extent to which 

other countries are working to support nuclear security in Russia. 

(419) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $31.2 

million consistent with the budget request. 

(421) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 

Permanent authority of Secretary of Transportation to issue 

vessel war risk insurance (sec. 3502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 539 of title 46, United States Code, to make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide vessel war 

risk insurance. This provision was requested by the Department of 

Defense. 

(423) 

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. 

(425) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

426 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

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 ................................ 3,782,558 3,782,558 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................... 3,355,777 420,000 3,775,777 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................... 4,489,118 –314,000 4,175,118 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................... 2,234,761 –106,700 2,128,061 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................... 7,999,529 –263,200 7,736,329 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 19,041,799 175,400 19,217,199 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 3,702,393 –21,900 3,680,493 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ...................... 1,006,209 –13,000 993,209 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ..................... 21,871,437 1,255,500 23,126,937 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ...................................... 9,414,355 –40,500 9,373,855 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................. 2,860,410 –113,476 2,746,934 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................ 16,206,937 413,800 16,620,737 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................... 2,669,454 2,200 2,671,654 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 2,527,542 2,527,542 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............. 1,587,304 1,587,304 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 20,890,164 78,096 20,968,260 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................. 6,786,271 500 6,786,771 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ................. 100,025 100,025 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT ........................... 130,526,043 1,472,720 131,998,763 

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ....... 10,159,379 119,572 10,278,951 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ........ 18,481,666 55,177 18,536,843 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ............ 40,178,343 574,901 40,753,244 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ........... 22,016,553 399,038 22,415,591 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ........................ 221,009 10,900 231,909 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 

TEST AND EVALUATION ........................................... 91,056,950 1,159,588 92,216,538 

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................... 42,009,317 –385,700 41,623,617 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................... 2,916,909 2,916,909 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................... 7,399,295 7,399,295 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................ 49,003,633 362,700 49,366,333 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ............ 6,832,510 6,832,510 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................... 1,027,006 1,027,006 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............... 271,570 271,570 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................... 42,060,568 902,700 42,963,268 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................ 3,260,234 54,800 3,315,034 

427 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................. 6,427,622 12,600 6,440,222 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........ 36,352,625 162,100 36,514,725 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .............................. 1,908,347 –11,000 1,897,347 

UNDISTRIBUTED ........................................................... 0 –216,520 –216,520 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 199,469,636 881,680 200,351,316 

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .................................................. 140,689,301 –3,062,080 137,627,221 

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................. 7,533,090 7,533,090 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL .............. 148,222,391 –3,062,080 145,160,311 

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ............................................. 1,542,115 1,542,115 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ............... 993,816 993,816 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ... 787,525 787,525 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................... 329,273 329,273 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ....................................... 33,729,192 2,500 33,731,692 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........ 37,381,921 2,500 37,384,421 

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ......................................................... 606,656,941 454,408 607,111,349 

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ........................................................................... 1,011,768 107,600 1,119,368 

NAVY ............................................................................ 2,543,189 29,563 2,572,752 

AIR FORCE ................................................................... 1,725,707 26,450 1,752,157 

DEFENSE-WIDE ............................................................. 2,693,324 –290,036 2,403,288 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .............................................. 180,122 126,000 306,122 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD .................................................. 129,126 54,000 183,126 

ARMY RESERVE ........................................................... 64,919 64,919 

NAVY RESERVE ............................................................ 43,065 43,065 

AIR FORCE RESERVE ................................................... 50,163 14,400 64,563 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ..................... 171,064 171,064 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................... 8,612,447 67,977 8,680,424 

FAMILY HOUSING 

CONSTRUCTION, ARMY ................................................ 330,660 330,660 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................... 376,509 376,509 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ............... 104,581 104,581 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE 

CORPS ..................................................................... 314,536 314,536 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE ........................................ 78,446 78,446 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............... 317,274 317,274 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........ 58,373 58,373 

IMPROVEMENT FUND ................................................... 1,653 1,653 

UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND ....................................... 600 600 

428 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING ...................................... 1,582,632 0 1,582,632 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

ARMY ........................................................................... 62,796 62,796 

NAVY ............................................................................ 151,839 151,839 

AIR FORCE ................................................................... 52,903 52,903 

SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ......... 267,538 0 267,538 

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ......................................................... 10,462,617 67,977 10,530,594 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) .......................................... 617,119,558 522,385 617,641,943 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS 

DISCRETIONARY SUMMARY BY APPROPRIATION 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................... 136,090 136,090 

SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................. 136,090 0 136,090 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ................................................... 11,017,078 11,017,078 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................... 1,862,825 1,862,825 

NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................ 1,788,618 1,788,618 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ............................ 422,529 422,529 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION .................................................................. 15,091,050 0 15,091,050 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP .......................... 5,630,217 5,630,217 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................ 853,300 853,300 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ......................... 30,000 –30,000 0 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ................................................................... 6,513,517 –30,000 6,483,517 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................................................... 21,740,657 –30,000 21,710,657 

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILTIIES SAFETY BOARD .......... 31,200 31,200 

429 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION ........................................................... 31,200 0 31,200 

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL 

AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 21,771,857 –30,000 21,741,857 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET 

SUB-FUNCTION 053) ............................................... 21,771,857 –30,000 21,741,857 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET 

REQUEST ................................................................. 638,891,415 492,385 639,383,800 

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................ 363,363 363,363 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................... 1,802,351 1,802,351 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................... 1,107,183 1,107,183 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................... 309,525 309,525 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................... 1,382,047 1,382,047 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 80,119 80,119 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................. 14,134 82,800 96,934 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ...................... 246,541 –2,000 244,541 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ...................................... 187,173 187,173 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................. 58,023 58,023 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................ 1,018,888 1,018,888 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................... 493,526 22,800 516,326 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............. 1,421,516 1,421,516 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................. 3,725,944 3,725,944 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................. 572,135 572,135 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT .......................................... 12,782,468 103,600 12,886,068 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ....... 325,104 325,104 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ........ 167,812 167,812 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ............ 314,271 314,271 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ........... 500,544 500,544 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 

EVALUATION ............................................................ 1,307,731 0 1,307,731 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................... 18,210,500 18,210,500 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ................... 41,887 41,887 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ........................... 110,729 110,729 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................... 4,497,421 4,497,421 

430 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................... 702,029 702,029 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................ 4,757,155 4,757,155 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ............ 1,121,900 1,121,900 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................... 25,637 25,637 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............... 3,345 3,345 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................... 9,285,789 9,285,789 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................ 60,500 60,500 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................. 15,870 15,870 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........ 8,549,908 –550,000 7,999,908 

SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................. 47,382,670 –550,000 46,832,670 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .................................................. 4,660,661 4,660,661 

SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................ 4,660,661 0 4,660,661 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ............................................. 15,190 15,190 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ... 153,100 153,100 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................... 24,692 24,692 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ....................................... 352,068 352,068 

COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ...................... 1,400,000 1,400,000 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................... 1,945,050 0 1,945,050 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ........................................................................... 261,250 –69,000 192,250 

NAVY ............................................................................ 227,320 227,320 

AIR FORCE ................................................................... 345,800 345,800 

DEFENSE-WIDE ............................................................. 87,050 87,050 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................... 921,420 –69,000 852,420 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) 

OCO BUDGET REQUEST ........................................... 69,000,000 –515,400 68,484,600 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) 707,891,415 –23,015 707,868,400 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME 

(FUNCTION 600) ...................................................... 64,300 64,300 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

TITLE X—GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ................. [5,000,000 ] [4,500,000 ] 

TITLE XV—SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ................ [4,500,000 ] [3,500,000 ] 

(431) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 

432 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

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) .............................................................................. 617,119,558 522,385 617,641,943 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 21,771,857 –30,000 21,741,857 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................. 69,000,000 –515,400 68,484,600 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ..................................... 707,891,415 –23,015 707,868,400 

OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED 

SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES .......................... 39,000 39,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY .............................................................................. 8,000 8,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ... 36,000 36,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ... 83,000 0 83,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM 120,000 120,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) 120,000 0 120,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS .................................. 8,034,000 8,034,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ............. 8,034,000 0 8,034,000 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) ................................................................... 8,237,000 0 8,237,000 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ..................... 686,202,558 6,985 686,209,543 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 21,891,857 –30,000 21,861,857 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................................. 8,034,000 8,034,000 

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050 ...................................................................... 716,128,415 –23,015 716,105,400 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE 

MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND ........................................ 7,720,000 7,720,000 

REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY ........... 1,794,000 1,794,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS ....................................................... –1,855,000 –1,855,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ... 7,659,000 0 7,659,000 

433 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2019 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND OTHER ............................. 1,277,000 1,277,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) 1,277,000 0 1,277,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ........ 50,000 50,000 

PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER ............ 514,000 514,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ............. 564,000 0 564,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS 

(050) .............................................................................. 9,500,000 0 9,500,000 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ..................... 693,861,558 6,985 693,868,543 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .................... 23,168,857 –30,000 23,138,857 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................................. 8,598,000 8,598,000 

TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) .............. 725,628,415 –23,015 725,605,400 

(435) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

436 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 0 744 0 744

3 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 43,326 0 43,326 4 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ......................................................................................................... 0 46,416 0 46,416 

ROTARY 

7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 48 753,248 48 753,248 8 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN AP ..................................................................... 0 174,550 0 174,550 9 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ................................................................... 12 284,687 12 284,687 

10 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD AP .............................................................. 0 58,600 0 58,600 11 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 49 988,810 49 988,810 12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) AP ................................................................. 0 106,150 0 106,150 13 UH–60 BLACK HAWK A AND L MODELS .................................................................... 18 146,138 18 146,138 14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 6 99,278 6 99,278 

15 CH–47 HELICOPTER AP ............................................................................................. 0 24,235 0 24,235 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

18 UNIVERSAL GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (UAS) ................................................... 0 27,114 0 27,114 19 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ................................................................................................. 0 97,781 0 97,781 

20 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 52,274 0 52,274 21 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 104,996 0 104,996 

437 

22 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 7,807 0 7,807 23 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) .......................................................................................... 0 5,573 0 5,573 24 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 7,522 0 7,522 25 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 20,448 0 20,448 26 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 17,719 0 17,719 27 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 6,443 0 6,443 28 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 123,614 0 123,614 29 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 161,969 0 161,969 30 DEGRADED VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 0 30,000 0 30,000 31 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 26,848 0 26,848 32 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 103,246 0 103,246 33 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 17,644 0 17,644 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

34 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 57,170 0 57,170 35 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 5,853 0 5,853 

36 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 13,496 0 13,496 37 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................. 0 36,839 0 36,839 

OTHER SUPPORT 

38 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 1,778 0 1,778 39 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 34,818 0 34,818 40 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 27,243 0 27,243 41 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 63,872 0 63,872 42 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 1,417 0 1,417 43 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 0 1,901 0 1,901 44 LAUNCHER GUIDED MISSILE: LONGBOW HELLFIRE XM2 ........................................... 0 991 0 991 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 133 3,782,558 0 0 133 3,782,558 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ....................................................... 0 111,395 0 111,395 2 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 179 871,276 179 871,276 

3 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I .................................................... 0 145,636 0 500,000 0 645,636 

438 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Acceleration of cruise missile defense ............................................................ [0 ] [500,000 ] 

4 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I AP ............................................... 0 31,286 0 31,286 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

6 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ........................................................................ 1,046 276,462 1,046 276,462 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 709 303,665 709 303,665 9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1,472 105,014 1,472 105,014 

10 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY AP ................................................................................... 0 19,949 0 19,949 11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 3,267 359,613 3,267 359,613 12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 2,214 20,964 2,214 20,964 

MODIFICATIONS 

15 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 313,228 0 313,228 16 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 0 221,656 –82 –80,000 –82 141,656 

Requested quantity exceeds maximum ........................................................... [–82 ] [–80,000 ] 

17 GMLRS MOD .............................................................................................................. 0 266 0 266 

18 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 94,756 0 94,756 19 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 48,670 0 48,670 20 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 3,173 0 3,173 21 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 383,216 0 383,216 22 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 10,196 0 10,196 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

23 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 27,737 0 27,737 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

24 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 6,417 0 6,417 

25 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 0 1,202 0 1,202 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 8,887 3,355,777 –82 420,000 8,805 3,775,777 

439 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ........................................................... 131 479,801 0 –100,000 131 379,801 

Program decrease ............................................................................................ [0 ] [–100,000 ] 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

4 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 287,490 0 –149,390 0 138,100 

Army requested transfer .................................................................................. [0 ] [–149,390 ] 

5 STRYKER UPGRADE ................................................................................................... 3 21,900 0 149,390 3 171,290 

Army requested transfer .................................................................................. [0 ] [149,390 ] 

6 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 625,424 0 –324,000 0 301,424 

Program decrease ............................................................................................ [0 ] [–324,000 ] 

7 M109 FOV MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 0 26,482 0 26,482 

8 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 30 351,802 0 110,000 30 461,802 

Program increase ............................................................................................. [0 ] [110,000 ] 

9 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 26 110,500 26 110,500 

10 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 2,120 0 2,120 

11 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 12 62,407 12 62,407 12 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 4,517 0 4,517 13 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 30 142,255 30 142,255 14 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 927,600 0 927,600 15 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 95 1,075,999 95 1,075,999 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) .................................................................. 0 1,955 0 1,955 19 MULTI-ROLE ANTI-ARMOR ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON S .......................................... 0 23,345 0 23,345 20 GUN AUTOMATIC 30MM M230 .................................................................................. 0 7,434 0 7,434 21 MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL ............................................................................ 0 22,330 0 22,330 22 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 12,470 0 12,470 

23 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 0 697 0 697 24 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 46,236 0 46,236 25 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 69,306 0 69,306 26 SMALL ARMS—FIRE CONTROL ................................................................................. 0 7,929 0 7,929 

440 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

27 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 35,968 0 35,968 28 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 0 48,251 0 48,251 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

29 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 0 1,684 0 1,684 30 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 3,086 0 3,086 

31 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 31,575 0 31,575 32 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 21,600 0 21,600 33 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 0 3,924 0 3,924 34 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 6,940 0 6,940 35 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 0 2,747 0 2,747 36 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 5,704 0 5,704 

37 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 3,965 0 3,965 38 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 5,577 0 5,577 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

39 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 3,174 0 3,174 40 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 0 3,284 0 3,284 41 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 0 1,640 0 1,640 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 327 4,489,118 0 –314,000 327 4,175,118 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 41,848 0 –6,700 0 35,148 

FY2018 Omnibus forward finance ................................................................... [0 ] [–6,700 ] 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 86,199 0 86,199 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 20,158 0 20,158 4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 65,573 0 65,573 

441 

5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 8,198 0 8,198 7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 77,995 0 77,995 8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 69,781 0 69,781 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 45,280 0 45,280

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 46,853 0 46,853 11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 83,003 0 83,003

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 168,101 0 168,101 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 39,341 0 39,341 14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 211,442 0 211,442 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 1,189 100,906 1,189 100,906 

16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 236,677 0 –100,000 0 136,677 

Ammunition Cuts ............................................................................................. [0 ] [–100,000 ] 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 15,905 0 15,905 

ROCKETS 

18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 4,503 0 4,503 19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 211,211 0 211,211 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 0 10,428 0 10,428 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 44,656 0 44,656 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 19,896 0 19,896 23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 10,121 0 10,121 24 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 11,464 0 11,464 

MISCELLANEOUS 

25 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 5,224 0 5,224 26 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 4,310 0 4,310 27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 11,193 0 11,193 28 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 10,500 0 10,500 29 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 18,456 0 18,456 

442 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

30 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES .............................................................................................. 0 100 0 100 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

32 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 394,133 0 394,133 

33 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 157,535 0 157,535 34 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 3,771 0 3,771 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 1,189 2,234,761 0 –106,700 1,189 2,128,061 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 16,512 0 16,512 2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 16,951 0 16,951 

3 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ...................................................................... 0 50,123 0 50,123 4 GROUND MOBILITY VEHICLES (GMV) ........................................................................ 0 46,988 0 46,988 6 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 0 1,319,436 0 –250,000 0 1,069,436 

Program reduction ........................................................................................... [0 ] [–250,000 ] 

7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) ......................................................................................... 0 6,480 0 6,480 

8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 0 132,882 0 132,882 9 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 0 14,842 0 14,842 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 0 138,105 0 138,105 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 31,892 0 31,892 13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 38,128 0 38,128 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 78,507 0 78,507 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

16 HEAVY ARMORED VEHICLE ........................................................................................ 0 790 0 790 17 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 1,390 0 1,390 18 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 15,415 0 15,415 

443 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

20 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 150,777 0 150,777 21 TACTICAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY MOD IN SVC ....................................................... 0 469,117 0 469,117 22 SITUATION INFORMATION TRANSPORT ....................................................................... 0 62,727 0 62,727 23 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 0 13,895 0 13,895 24 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 0 4,866 0 4,866 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

27 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 108,133 0 108,133 28 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 56,737 0 56,737 29 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 13,100 0 13,100 

30 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 9,160 0 9,160 31 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 0 25,647 0 25,647 32 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ....................................................................... 0 37,401 0 37,401 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

36 COE TACTICAL SERVER INFRASTRUCTURE (TSI) ....................................................... 0 20,500 0 20,500 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

38 HANDHELD MANPACK SMALL FORM FIT (HMS) ......................................................... 0 351,565 0 351,565 40 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 0 4,641 0 4,641 41 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 0 2,187 0 2,187 42 TRACTOR RIDE ........................................................................................................... 0 9,411 0 9,411 44 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ................................................... 0 17,515 0 17,515 45 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 0 819 0 819 46 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 17,807 0 17,807 47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 0 191,835 0 191,835 48 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 0 25,177 0 25,177 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

50 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) ...................................................................... 0 9,740 0 9,740 51 DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE ............................................................... 0 2,667 0 2,667 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

53 FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ............................................................................................ 0 8,319 0 8,319 54 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 55 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 88,337 0 88,337 

444 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

56 DEFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 0 51,343 0 51,343 57 INSIDER THREAT PROGRAM—UNIT ACTIVITY MONITO .............................................. 0 330 0 330 58 PERSISTENT CYBER TRAINING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 0 3,000 0 3,000 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

59 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 34,434 0 34,434 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 95,558 0 95,558 61 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 0 4,736 0 4,736 62 HOME STATION MISSION COMMAND CENTERS (HSMCC) .......................................... 0 24,479 0 24,479 63 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 216,433 0 216,433 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

66 JTT/CIBS-M (MIP) ....................................................................................................... 0 10,268 0 10,268 68 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 261,863 0 261,863 69 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) (MIP) ..................................................... 0 5,434 0 5,434 70 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 20,623 0 20,623 71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 45,998 0 1,800 0 47,798 

SOUTHCOM SIGINT Suite COMSAT RF .............................................................. [0 ] [1,800 ] 

72 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING & COLL(CHARCS)(MIP) ................................................. 0 296 0 296 76 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MIP) ................................................................................ 0 410 0 410 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

77 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 9,165 0 9,165 78 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 0 5,875 0 5,875 79 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) (MIP) ......................................................................................... 0 8,497 0 8,497 

83 CI MODERNIZATION (MIP) ......................................................................................... 0 486 0 486 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

84 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 79,629 0 79,629 

445 

85 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 153,180 0 153,180 87 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 22,882 0 22,882 88 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 0 17,393 0 17,393 90 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 46,740 0 46,740 91 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 140,737 0 140,737 93 PROFILER ................................................................................................................... 0 171 0 171 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 405,239 0 405,239 95 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 0 66,574 0 66,574 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 20,783 0 20,783 97 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 8,553 0 8,553 98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 21,489 0 21,489 99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 162,121 0 162,121 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

100 ARMY COMMAND POST INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE ( ........................................ 0 2,855 0 2,855 101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 19,153 0 19,153 

102 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 33,837 0 33,837 103 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 5,136 0 5,136 104 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 18,329 0 18,329 105 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 38,015 0 38,015 106 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 15,164 0 15,164 107 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 29,239 0 29,239 109 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 0 6,823 0 6,823 110 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ...................................................................... 0 1,177 0 1,177 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

111 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 12,265 0 12,265 112 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 201,875 0 –15,000 0 186,875 

Consolidating more IT purchases .................................................................... [0 ] [–15,000 ] 

113 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 10,976 0 10,976 114 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 66,330 0 66,330 115 CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 5,927 0 5,927 116 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 27,896 0 27,896 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

446 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

117 TACTICAL DIGITAL MEDIA .......................................................................................... 0 4,392 0 4,392 118 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 1,970 0 1,970 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

119 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 0 506 0 506 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 4,501 0 4,501CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 0 2,314 0 2,314 

122 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 7,478 0 7,478 124 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 173,954 0 173,954 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

125 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 98,229 0 98,229 

126 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 0 64,438 0 64,438 127 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 79,916 0 79,916 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

128 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD DETECTION SYS-HST ........................................... 0 8,471 0 8,471 129 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 29,883 0 29,883 130 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) .................................................................. 0 11,594 0 11,594 131 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 0 40,834 0 40,834 132 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 4,029 0 4,029 133 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 14,208 0 14,208 134 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 0 31,456 0 31,456 136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 1,748 0 1,748 137 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 7,829 0 7,829 138 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 5,806 0 5,806 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

447 

139 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 9,852 0 9,852 140 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ........................................................................................... 0 1,103 0 1,103 141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 5,875 0 5,875 142 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 92,487 0 92,487 143 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER .......................................................................................... 0 30,774 0 30,774 145 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 17,521 0 17,521 146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 44,855 0 44,855 147 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 17,173 0 17,173 148 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

149 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 1,770 0 1,770 150 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 0 39,730 0 39,730 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

151 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 57,752 0 57,752 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 37,722 0 37,722 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 4,985 0 4,985 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

155 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ........................................................................................ 0 7,961 0 7,961 

156 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ............................................................................................ 0 1,355 0 1,355 158 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 0 13,031 0 13,031 159 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 46,048 0 46,048 160 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ................................................ 0 980 0 980 161 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 0 37,017 0 37,017 162 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 6,103 0 6,103 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

163 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 27,711 0 27,711 164 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 8,385 0 8,385 

GENERATORS 

165 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 133,772 0 133,772 166 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 0 8,333 0 8,333 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

448 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

167 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 12,901 0 12,901 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

168 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 0 123,228 0 123,228 169 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 228,598 0 228,598 

170 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER .......................................................................... 0 33,080 0 33,080 171 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 32,700 0 32,700 172 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 25,161 0 25,161 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

173 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,270 0 4,270 174 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 76,295 0 76,295 175 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 9,806 0 9,806 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

176 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR .................................................................................... 0 4,368 0 4,368177 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 9,879 0 9,879 178 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 54,043 0 54,043 179 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 6,633 0 6,633 180 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 49,797 0 49,797 181 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ......................................................................... 0 2,301 0 2,301 182 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 11,608 0 11,608 183 TRACTOR YARD .......................................................................................................... 0 4,956 0 4,956 

OPA2 

184 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 0 9,817 0 9,817 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 0 7,999,529 0 –263,200 0 7,736,329 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

449 

1 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 24 1,937,553 24 1,937,553 2 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET AP ............................................................................. 0 58,799 0 58,799 3 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 9 1,144,958 –1 –121,000 8 1,023,958 

Program Realignment ...................................................................................... [–1 ] [–121,000 ] 

4 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV AP ................................................................................... 0 140,010 0 140,010 

5 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 20 2,312,847 20 2,312,847 6 JSF STOVL AP ............................................................................................................ 0 228,492 0 228,492 7 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ............................................................................................... 8 1,113,804 8 1,113,804 8 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) AP .......................................................................................... 0 161,079 0 161,079 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 7 806,337 7 806,337 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) AP ........................................................................................... 0 36,955 0 36,955 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 25 820,755 25 820,755 14 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 10 1,803,753 10 1,803,753 15 P–8A POSEIDON AP ................................................................................................... 0 180,000 0 180,000 16 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 4 742,693 1 175,000 5 917,693 

UPL—1 additional Aircraft .............................................................................. [1 ] [175,000 ] 

17 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE AP ............................................................................................ 0 240,734 0 240,734 

71 O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT ................................................................................ 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 

Initial procurement for light attack aircraft ................................................... [0 ] [100,000 ] 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

18 C–40A ........................................................................................................................ 2 206,000 –2 –206,000 0 0 

Funded in FY18 Omnibus ................................................................................ [–2 ] [–206,000 ] 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

20 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 160,433 2 160,433 21 KC–130J AP ............................................................................................................... 0 110,013 0 110,013 22 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 3 568,743 3 568,743 23 MQ–4 TRITON AP ...................................................................................................... 0 58,522 0 58,522 24 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 54,761 0 54,761 25 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 14,866 0 14,866 26 VH–92A EXECUTIVE HELO ......................................................................................... 6 649,015 6 649,015 72 UAV ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 

Procurement of UAV ......................................................................................... [0 ] [100,000 ] 

450 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

27 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 25,277 0 25,277 

28 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 58,577 0 58,577 29 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 14,606 0 14,606 30 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 1,213,482 0 13,900 0 1,227,382 

UPL—EA–18G Advanced Modes / Cognitive EW ............................................ [0 ] [13,900 ] 

31 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 70,997 0 70,997 

32 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 130,661 0 130,661 33 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 87,143 0 87,143 34 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 3,633 0 3,633 35 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 803 0 803 36 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 88,780 0 88,780 37 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 11,660 0 11,660 38 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 11,327 0 11,327 39 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 79,075 0 79,075 40 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 597 0 597 41 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 8,932 0 8,932 42 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 181,821 0 181,821 43 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 23,566 0 23,566 44 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 7,620 0 7,620

45 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 195,475 0 195,475 46 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 21,521 0 21,521 47 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 27,644 0 27,644 48 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ................................................................................. 0 15,864 0 15,86449 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 166,306 43 25,000 43 191,306 

UPL—F/A–18 E/F Adaptative Radar Countermeasures .................................. [43 ] [25,000 ] 

451 

50 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 117,551 0 117,551 51 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 1,994 0 1,994 52 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 40,696 0 40,696 53 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 71,251 0 71,251 54 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 11,590 0 11,590 55 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 37,907 0 37,907 57 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 214,820 0 214,82058 NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ............................................................................ 0 952 0 952 59 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 36,618 0 33,500 0 70,118 

F–35B Modifications Increase ......................................................................... [0 ] [33,500 ] 

60 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 21,236 0 5,000 0 26,236 

F–35C Modifications Increase ......................................................................... [0 ] [5,000 ] 

61 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 101,499 0 101,499 62 MQ–4 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 48,278 0 48,278 

63 RQ–21 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 6,904 0 6,904 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,792,920 0 50,000 0 1,842,920 

F–35B and F–35C spares quantity increase .................................................. [0 ] [50,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

65 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 421,606 0 421,606 66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 24,496 0 24,496

67 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 42,108 0 42,108 68 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,444 0 1,444 69 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 49,489 0 49,489 70 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 1,951 0 1,951 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 120 19,041,799 41 175,400 161 19,217,199 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,078,750 0 1,078,750 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 6,998 0 6,998 

452 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 0 98,570 0 98,570 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 140 211,058 140 211,058 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 191 77,927 58 45,000 249 122,927 

Navy UPL: Increase to maximum capacity ...................................................... [58 ] [45,000 ] 

6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,330 0 1,330 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 125 490,210 125 490,210 

8 STANDARD MISSILE AP .............................................................................................. 0 125,683 0 125,683 9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ........................................................................................ 750 91,272 750 91,272 

10 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 120 96,221 120 96,221 11 JOINT AIR GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ......................................................................... 75 24,109 75 24,109 14 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 31 11,378 31 11,378 15 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 137,137 0 137,137 16 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 3,318 0 3,318 17 LRASM ....................................................................................................................... 25 81,190 10 30,000 35 111,190 

Navy UPL: Increase to maximum capacity ...................................................... [10 ] [30,000 ] 

18 LCS OTH MISSILE ...................................................................................................... 8 18,156 8 18,156 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

19 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 45 98,384 45 98,384 20 HARPOON MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 14,840 48 12,000 48 26,840 

Navy UPL: Increase to max capacity ............................................................... [48 ] [12,000 ] 

21 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 187,985 –200 –113,900 –200 74,085 

Reduce procurement due to test results ......................................................... [–200 ] [–113,900 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

23 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 2,006 0 2,006 

453 

24 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 66,779 0 66,779 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

25 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 62,008 0 62,008 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

26 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 6,353 0 6,353 27 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 45 92,616 5 11,000 50 103,616 

Navy UPL: Increase to maximum capacity ...................................................... [5 ] [11,000 ] 

28 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 12,324 0 12,324 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

29 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 105,946 0 105,946 

30 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 40,005 0 40,005 31 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 9,758 0 9,758 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

32 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 79,371 0 79,371 33 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 3,872 0 3,872 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

34 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 3,726 0 3,726 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

35 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 15,067 0 15,067 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

36 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 63,318 0 63,318 

37 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 40,823 0 40,823 38 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 74,618 0 74,618 39 LCS MODULE WEAPONS ............................................................................................ 90 11,350 –50 –6,000 40 5,350 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [–50 ] [–6,000 ] 

41 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 22,249 0 22,249 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

43 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 135,688 0 135,688 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 1,645 3,702,393 –129 –21,900 1,516 3,680,493 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

454 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 79,871 0 79,871 2 JDAM .......................................................................................................................... 3,688 87,900 3,688 87,900 3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 151,431 0 151,431 4 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 11,344 0 11,344 5 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 49,471 0 49,471 6 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 56,227 0 56,227 7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 66,382 0 66,382 8 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,907 0 2,907 9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 72,657 0 72,657 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 33,613 –1,000 –13,000 –1,000 20,613 

Alamo LRIP ahead of testing .......................................................................... [–1,000 ] [–13,000 ] 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 42,142 0 42,142 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 49,888 0 49,888 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 10,931 0 10,931 15 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 1,106 0 1,106 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

19 MORTARS ................................................................................................................... 0 28,266 0 28,266 

21 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................... 0 63,664 0 63,66422 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ............................................................................ 0 59,295 0 59,295 26 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS .................................................................................. 0 31,577 0 31,577 28 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 15,001 0 15,001 29 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS .............................................................................................. 0 86,297 0 86,297 30 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 6,239 0 6,239 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 3,688 1,006,209 –1,000 –13,000 2,688 993,209 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY 

455 

FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SHIPS 

1 OHIO REPLACEMENT SUBMARINE AP ........................................................................ 0 3,005,330 0 3,005,330 

OTHER WARSHIPS 

2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 1,598,181 0 1,598,181 4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 4,373,382 2 4,373,382 

5 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE AP ............................................................................... 0 2,796,401 0 250,000 0 3,046,401 

FY19–23 MYP EOQ or SIB expansion .............................................................. [0 ] [250,000 ] 

7 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS AP ............................................................................... 0 449,597 0 449,597 8 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 270,965 0 –270,965 0 0 

Cost growth transfer to Line 28 ...................................................................... [0 ] [–270,965 ] 

9 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 3 5,253,327 0 –27,500 3 5,225,827 

Multiyear procurement contract savings ......................................................... [0 ] [–27,500 ] 

10 DDG–51 AP ................................................................................................................ 0 391,928 0 250,000 0 641,928 

Enable greater long lead material procurement ............................................. [0 ] [250,000 ] 

11 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 1 646,244 0 –70,000 1 576,244 

Align Plans and Other costs with end of production ..................................... [0 ] [–70,000 ] 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

12 LPD –17 .................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 650,000 0 650,000 

AP for FY2020 LPD Flight II and/or MYP EOQ ................................................ [0 ] [650,000 ] 

13 EXPEDITIONARY SEA BASE (ESB) .............................................................................. 1 650,000 1 650,000 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

16 TAO FLEET OILER ...................................................................................................... 2 977,104 2 977,104 

17 TAO FLEET OILER AP ................................................................................................. 0 75,046 0 75,046 18 TOWING, SALVAGE, AND RESCUE SHIP (ATS) ........................................................... 1 80,517 1 80,517 20 LCU 1700 .................................................................................................................. 2 41,520 2 41,520 21 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 634,038 0 –72,000 0 562,038 

Unjustified cost growth ................................................................................... [0 ] [–72,000 ] 

22 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR .................................................................................... 5 325,375 5 325,375 

23 SERVICE CRAFT ......................................................................................................... 0 72,062 0 25,000 0 97,062 

Accelerate detail design and construction of YP–703 Flight II ..................... [0 ] [25,000 ] 

24 LCAC SLEP ................................................................................................................. 1 23,321 1 23,321 

25 USCG ICEBREAKERS .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

456 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

28 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 207,099 0 270,965 0 478,064 

Cost growth transfer from Line 8 ................................................................... [0 ] [270,965 ] 

29 CABLE SHIP ............................................................................................................... 0 0 1 250,000 1 250,000 

Program increase ............................................................................................. [1 ] [250,000 ] 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ....................................................... 18 21,871,437 1 1,255,500 19 23,126,937 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 SURFACE POWER EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 19,700 0 19,700 

GENERATORS 

3 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 23,495 0 23,495 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

4 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 63,330 0 10,000 0 73,330 

Accelerate ECDIS-N 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 implementation .......................................... [0 ] [10,000 ] 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

5 SUB PERISCOPE, IMAGING AND SUPT EQUIP PROG ................................................. 0 178,421 0 178,421 6 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 487,999 0 487,999 

7 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 28,143 0 28,143 8 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,248 0 2,248 9 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ...................................................................................................... 0 37,694 0 37,694 

10 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 20,883 0 20,883 11 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 37,155 0 37,155 12 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 66,328 0 66,328 13 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 47,241 0 47,241 14 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 27,987 0 27,987 15 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 65,033 0 65,033 

457 

16 DDG 1000 CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 0 89,700 0 –38,400 0 51,300 

Procurement early to need ............................................................................... [0 ] [–38,400 ] 

17 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 22,254 0 22,254 18 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 3,629 0 3,629 

19 CG MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 0 276,446 0 276,446 20 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,709 0 3,709 21 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 78,807 0 78,807 22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 126,865 0 –25,000 0 101,865 

Insufficient justification for CVN–78 in-service requirements ....................... [0 ] [–25,000 ] 

23 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 2,966 0 2,966 24 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 11,968 0 11,968 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

25 REACTOR POWER UNITS ............................................................................................ 0 346,325 0 346,325 

26 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 497,063 0 497,063 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

27 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 10,706 0 10,706 

SMALL BOATS 

28 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 49,771 0 49,771 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

29 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 225,181 0 225,181 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

31 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 46,732 0 46,732 32 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 124,147 0 27,916 0 152,063 

Transfer Cobra trainer from Line 53 ............................................................... [0 ] [8,616 ] Transfer Knifefish and UISS trainers from Line 52 ........................................ [0 ] [19,300 ] 

33 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 57,294 0 –18,000 0 39,294 

Excess procurement ahead of satisfactory testing ......................................... [0 ] [–18,000 ] 

34 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 26,006 0 –11,500 0 14,506 

Excess procurement ahead of satisfactory testing ......................................... [0 ] [–11,500 ] 

35 LCS IN-SERVICE MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 70,526 0 70,526 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

36 LSD MIDLIFE & MODERNIZATION .............................................................................. 0 4,784 0 4,784 

458 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

SHIP SONARS 

37 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 20,309 0 20,309 

38 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 115,459 0 115,459 39 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 318,189 0 318,189 40 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 10,134 0 10,134 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

41 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 23,815 0 23,815 42 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 11,277 0 –5,000 0 6,277 

AN/SLQ–32E contract delay ............................................................................. [0 ] [–5,000 ] 

43 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 237,780 0 237,780 44 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 57,872 0 57,872 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

45 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 420,344 0 420,344 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

46 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 220,883 0 220,883 

47 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 4,028 0 4,028 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

48 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 44,173 0 –6,000 0 38,173 

Common Array Block antenna program delay ................................................. [0 ] [–6,000 ] 

49 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 10,991 0 10,991 50 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 34,526 0 34,526 51 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 3,769 0 3,769 52 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 35,709 0 –19,300 0 16,409 

Transfer Knifefish and UISS trainers to Line 32 ............................................ [0 ] [–19,300 ] 

53 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 0 8,616 0 –8,616 0 0 

Transfer Cobra trainer to Line 32 ................................................................... [0 ] [–8,616 ] 

459 

54 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 10,703 0 10,703 55 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 2,626 0 2,626 56 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 9,467 0 9,467 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

57 ASHORE ATC EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 70,849 0 70,849 58 AFLOAT ATC EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................... 0 47,890 0 47,890 59 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 26,163 0 26,163 60 JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM ( ............................................ 0 38,094 0 38,094 61 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 11,966 0 11,966 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

62 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 42,010 0 42,010 63 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,896 0 12,896 64 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 423,027 0 423,027 65 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 8,175 0 8,175 66 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 54,465 0 54,465 67 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 5,985 0 5,985 68 MASF .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,413 0 5,413 69 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 6,251 0 6,251 70 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 4,183 0 4,183 71 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 148,350 0 –5,400 0 142,950 

NGSSR installation funding early to need ...................................................... [0 ] [–5,400 ] 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

72 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 45,450 0 45,450 73 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 105,087 0 105,087 74 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 41,123 0 41,123 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

75 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 30,897 0 30,897 76 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 78,580 0 78,580 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

77 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 41,205 0 41,205 78 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 113,885 0 113,885 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

460 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

79 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 4,292 0 4,292 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

80 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 153,526 0 153,526 81 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 951 0 951 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

82 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 14,209 0 2,800 0 17,009 

SOUTHCOM CCO Sensor (2 suites) .................................................................. [0 ] [2,800 ] 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

86 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 40,713 0 40,713 

SONOBUOYS 

88 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 177,891 0 36,000 0 213,891 

Navy UPL .......................................................................................................... [0 ] [36,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

89 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 93,864 0 93,864 90 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 111,724 0 111,724

91 ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ......................................................................... 0 11,054 0 11,054 92 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 21,072 0 21,072 93 DCRS/DPL .................................................................................................................. 0 656 0 656 94 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ...................................................................... 0 11,299 0 11,299 95 LAMPS EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 594 0 594 96 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 39,374 0 39,374 97 UMCS-UNMAN CARRIER AVIATION(UCA)MISSION CNTRL .......................................... 0 35,405 0 35,405 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

98 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,337 0 5,337 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

99 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 213,090 0 213,090 

461 

100 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 92,890 0 92,890 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

101 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 271,817 0 271,817 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

102 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 129,501 0 129,501 103 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 19,436 0 19,436 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 14,258 0 14,258 105 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,378 0 5,378

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

106 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ....................................................................... 0 65,543 0 65,543 107 SURFACE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 230,425 0 230,425 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 4,867 0 4,867 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 2,674 0 2,674 110 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 20,994 0 20,994 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 17,189 0 17,189 

112 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 19,916 0 19,916 113 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 7,400 0 7,400 114 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,713 0 2,713 115 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 35,540 0 35,540 116 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,155 0 1,155 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 0 18,786 0 18,786 118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,375 0 5,375 119 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 580,371 0 580,371 

TRAINING DEVICES 

120 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 3,400 0 3,400 121 TRAINING AND EDUCATION EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 24,283 0 24,283 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

122 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 66,681 0 66,681 123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 3,352 0 3,352 

462 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

125 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 1,984 0 1,984 126 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 15,131 0 15,131 127 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 3,576 0 3,576 128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 31,902 0 31,902 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 175,436 0 20,000 0 195,436 

New Navy port waterborne security barriers increase .................................... [0 ] [20,000 ] 

130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 25,393 0 25,393 

OTHER 

133 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 96,269 0 96,269 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 15,681 0 15,681 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

134 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 326,838 0 326,838 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 9,414,355 0 –40,500 0 9,373,855 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 156,249 0 –78,100 0 78,149 

Unjustified investment in a vehicle with low/limited combat utility ............. [0 ] [–78,100 ] 

2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE 1.1 .......................................................................... 30 167,478 30 167,478 3 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 43,701 0 43,701 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

5 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 47,158 0 47,158 6 ARTILLERY WEAPONS SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 134,246 0 134,246

7 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 40,687 0 40,687 

OTHER SUPPORT 

463 

8 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 22,904 0 22,904 

GUIDED MISSILES 

9 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 18,334 0 18,334 

10 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-JAVELIN .................................................................................. 5 3,020 5 3,020 11 FAMILY ANTI-ARMOR WEAPON SYSTEMS (FOAAWS) .................................................. 0 13,760 0 13,760 12 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-TOW ........................................................................................ 0 59,702 0 59,702 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

13 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 35,467 0 35,467 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

14 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 46,081 0 46,081

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

15 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 971 0 971 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

16 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 69,203 0 69,203 17 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 14,269 0 14,269

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

18 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 6,694 0 6,694 

19 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ....................................................... 6 224,969 6 224,969 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

21 GCSS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 1,187 0 1,187 22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 60,189 0 60,189 23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 73,848 0 73,848 25 UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS (INTEL) ............................................................................ 0 3,848 0 3,848 26 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 16,081 0 16,081 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

30 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 87,120 0 87,120 31 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 68,914 0 68,914 32 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 124,838 0 –24,968 0 99,870 

Operational limitations of NOTM ..................................................................... [0 ] [–24,968 ] 

33 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 279,680 0 279,680 

34 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 36,649 0 36,649 35 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 83,971 0 83,971 

464 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,626 0 3,626CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

36 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 25,441 0 25,441 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

37 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 11,392 0 11,392 38 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 0 607,011 0 607,011 

39 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 2,393 0 2,393 40 TRAILERS ................................................................................................................... 0 6,540 0 6,540 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

41 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 496 0 496 42 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 54 0 54 43 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 21,062 0 21,062 44 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 5,290 0 5,290 45 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 47,854 0 47,854 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

46 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 28,306 0 28,306 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

47 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 33,513 0 33,513 

48 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 52,040 0 –10,408 0 41,632 

Excess to need ................................................................................................. [0 ] [–10,408 ] 

49 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 36,156 0 36,156 50 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ................................................ 0 606 0 606 

OTHER SUPPORT 

51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,608 0 11,608 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

465 

53 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 25,804 0 25,804 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 41 2,860,410 0 –113,476 41 2,746,934 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 48 4,261,021 –1 –67,500 47 4,193,521 

Program Realignment ...................................................................................... [–1 ] [–67,500 ] 

2 F–35 AP ..................................................................................................................... 0 406,000 0 406,000 

18 O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT ................................................................................ 0 0 0 350,000 0 350,000 

Procurement of OA-X aircraft and long lead materials .................................. [0 ] [350,000 ] 

OTHER COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

3 C–135B ..................................................................................................................... 2 222,176 2 222,176 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

4 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 15 2,559,911 –1 –247,900 14 2,312,011 

Interim contractor support ............................................................................... [0 ] [–102,700 ] Restore program accountability ....................................................................... [–1 ] [–145,200 ] 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

5 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 35,858 0 35,858 

6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 1 129,437 1 129,437 8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 6 770,201 6 770,201 9 MC–130J AP .............................................................................................................. 0 218,000 0 218,000 

HELICOPTERS 

11 COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER ................................................................................. 10 680,201 10 680,201 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

13 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 4 2,719 4 2,719 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

14 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 48 139,053 48 139,053 

15 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 1 108,113 1 108,113 17 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 8 221,707 6 120,000 14 341,707 

Increase to accelerate Advanced Battle Management System ....................... [6 ] [120,000 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

19 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 60,301 0 60,301 

466 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

20 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 51,290 0 51,290 21 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 105,519 0 –4,800 0 100,719 

Air Force requested realignment ..................................................................... [0 ] [–14,800 ] LRASM certification .......................................................................................... [0 ] [10,000 ] 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

23 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 98,720 0 65,000 0 163,720 

Additional replacement wings ......................................................................... [0 ] [65,000 ] 

24 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 10,831 0 10,831 25 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 548,109 0 548,109 26 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 324,323 0 324,323 27 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 250,710 0 250,710 29 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 247,271 0 50,000 0 297,271 

F–35A Modifications increase ......................................................................... [0 ] [50,000 ] 

30 F–15 EPAW ................................................................................................................ 0 147,685 0 147,685 

31 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 0 9,007 0 9,007 33 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 0 8,547 0 8,547 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

34 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 77,845 0 77,845 36 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 102,121 0 102,121 37 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 17,516 0 17,516 38 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 4,537 0 4,537 39 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 419 0 419 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

41 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 137 0 137 42 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 22,550 0 22,550 43 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 21,952 0 21,952 

467 

44 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 70,623 0 70,623 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

45 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 48,774 0 48,774 46 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 11,104 0 11,104 47 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 4,900 0 4,900 48 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 36,938 0 36,938 49 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 251 0 251 50 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 22,094 0 74,000 0 96,094 

T56 Series 3.5 Engine Enhancement packages .............................................. [0 ] [74,000 ] 

51 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 132,045 0 132,045 

52 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 113,076 0 113,076 53 OC–135B ................................................................................................................... 0 5,913 0 5,913 54 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 49,885 0 49,885 55 COMBAT FLIGHT INSPECTION (CFIN) ......................................................................... 0 499 0 499 56 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 394,532 0 394,532 57 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 133,906 0 133,906 58 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 67,858 0 67,858 59 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 9,919 0 25,000 0 34,919 

Central Computer upgrade design .................................................................. [0 ] [25,000 ] 

60 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CNTR SYS (AWACS) 40/45 .............................................. 0 57,780 0 57,780 61 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 14,293 0 14,293 62 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 2,940 0 2,940 63 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 55,466 0 55,466 64 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 23,715 0 23,715 65 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 37,754 0 37,754 66 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 62,010 0 62,010 67 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 171,548 0 171,548 69 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 60,416 0 60,416 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

70 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 956,408 0 50,000 0 1,006,408 

F–35A spares ................................................................................................... [0 ] [50,000 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

468 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

71 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 81,241 0 81,241 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

74 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,763 0 1,763 75 B–2B ......................................................................................................................... 0 35,861 0 35,861 76 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 12,819 0 12,819 77 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 10,114 0 10,114 79 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 2,545 0 2,545 81 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 11,718 0 11,718 82 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 14,489 0 14,489 83 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 9,928 0 9,928 84 RQ–4 POST PRODUCTION CHARGES ......................................................................... 0 40,641 0 40,641 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

86 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 17,378 0 17,378

WAR CONSUMABLES 

88 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 29,342 0 29,342 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

89 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,502,386 0 1,502,386 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 28,278 0 28,278 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 143 16,206,937 4 413,800 147 16,620,737 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 36,786 0 36,786 

TACTICAL 

2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 312 430,708 312 430,708 

469 

3 LRASM0 ..................................................................................................................... 12 44,185 3 10,200 15 54,385 

Restore reduction ............................................................................................. [3 ] [10,200 ] 

4 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 256 121,253 256 121,253 

5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 220 337,886 220 337,886 6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 1,338 113,765 1,338 113,765 7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 2,917 105,034 2,917 105,034 8 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ........................................................................................ 510 100,861 0 –8,000 510 92,861 

Unit price adjustment ...................................................................................... [0 ] [–8,000 ] 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

9 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 787 0 787 

CLASS IV 

10 ICBM FUZE MOD ....................................................................................................... 0 15,767 0 15,767 

11 ICBM FUZE MOD AP .................................................................................................. 0 4,100 0 4,100 12 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 129,199 0 129,199 13 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 288 0 28814 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 47,632 0 47,632 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

16 REPLEN SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................ 0 97,481 0 97,481 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

18 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 188,539 0 188,539 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 895,183 0 895,183 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 5,565 2,669,454 3 2,200 5,568 2,671,654 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

1 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 29,829 0 29,829 

2 AF SATELLITE COMM SYSTEM ................................................................................... 0 35,400 0 35,400 3 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 0 1,121 0 1,121 4 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 27,867 0 27,867 5 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 0 61,606 0 61,606 6 GENERAL INFORMATION TECH—SPACE .................................................................... 0 3,425 0 3,425 

470 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

7 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 0 69,386 0 69,386 8 GLOBAL POSTIONING (SPACE) ................................................................................... 0 2,181 0 2,181 9 INTEG BROADCAST SERV .......................................................................................... 0 16,445 0 16,445 

10 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 31,895 0 31,895 12 MILSATCOM ................................................................................................................ 0 11,265 0 11,265 13 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH CAPABILITY ............................................................ 0 709,981 0 709,981 14 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 5 994,555 5 994,555 15 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 138,397 0 138,397 17 NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 0 7,705 0 7,705 18 ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM ...................................................................... 0 47,609 0 47,609 19 SPACE FENCE ............................................................................................................ 0 51,361 0 51,361 20 SPACE MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 148,065 0 148,065 21 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 117,637 0 117,637 

SPARES 

22 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 21,812 0 21,812 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 5 2,527,542 0 0 5 2,527,542 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 345,911 0 345,911 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 163,840 0 163,840 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 20,876 0 20,876 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 259,308 0 259,308 

5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP) ................................................................ 0 38,111 0 38,111 

471 

6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 7,899 234,198 7,899 234,198 7 B61 ............................................................................................................................ 250 109,292 250 109,292 8 B61 AP ...................................................................................................................... 0 52,731 0 52,731 

OTHER ITEMS 

9 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 51,455 0 51,455 

10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 6,038 0 6,038 11 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 524 0 524 12 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 1,270 0 1,270 13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5,000,000 .................................................................................. 0 4,604 0 4,604 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 125,286 0 125,286 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 109,358 0 109,358 

SMALL ARMS 

17 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 64,502 0 64,502 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 8,149 1,587,304 0 0 8,149 1,587,304 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 6,949 0 6,949 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 36,002 0 36,002 

3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 1,022 0 1,022 4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 42,696 0 7,183 0 49,879 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [7,183 ] 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 0 30,145 0 30,145

6 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 1,230 0 2,673 0 3,903 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [2,673 ] 

7 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................... 0 43,003 0 10,690 0 53,693 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [10,690 ] 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

472 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 23,328 0 8,980 0 32,308 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [8,980 ] 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

9 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES .............................................................................. 0 11,537 0 19,772 0 31,309 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [19,772 ] 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU ............................................................ 0 37,600 0 2,753 0 40,353 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [2,753 ] 

11 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ................................................................. 0 104,923 0 104,923 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 114,372 0 114,372 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & ARCHITECTURES ...................................................... 0 8,290 0 8,290 14 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 2,099 0 2,099 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 37,415 0 37,415 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 57,937 0 57,937 18 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 3,012 0 3,012 19 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMEN ............................................................... 0 19,989 0 19,989 20 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 45,020 0 45,020 21 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 32,836 0 32,836 22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 12,454 0 12,454 23 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 14,263 0 14,263

25 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 7,769 0 7,769 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

26 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 40,450 0 40,450 

473 

27 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 6,619 0 6,619 28 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 10,192 0 10,192 29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 159,313 0 2,002 0 161,315 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [2,002 ] 

30 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 132,675 0 132,675 

31 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 140,875 0 140,875 32 WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE (WAS) ............................................................................ 0 92,104 0 92,104 33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 45,152 0 45,152 34 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 483 0 483 35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING & MGT SYS ..................................................... 0 802 0 802 36 MAINTENANCE REPAIR & OVERHAUL INITIATIVE ....................................................... 0 12,207 0 12,207 37 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 7,644 0 7,644 38 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ............................................................... 0 40,066 0 40,066 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

41 BASE INFORMATION TRANSPT INFRAST (BITI) WIRED ............................................... 0 22,357 0 22,357 42 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 102,836 0 102,836 43 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 3,145 0 3,145 44 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 13,194 0 13,194 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

45 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 161,231 0 161,231 

47 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 12,142 0 12,142 48 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 6,505 0 6,505 49 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 169,404 0 169,404

MODIFICATIONS 

50 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 10,654 0 10,654 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

51 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 0 51,906 0 51,906 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

52 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 88,298 0 88,298 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

53 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 17,031 0 17,031 54 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 82,635 0 82,635 

474 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 9,549 0 9,549 56 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................... 0 24,005 0 24,043 0 48,048 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ................................................................. [0 ] [24,043 ] 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

58 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 26,262 0 26,262 59 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 448,290 0 448,290 61 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 913,813 0 913,813 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 17,258,069 0 17,258,069 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 86,365 0 86,365 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 20,890,164 0 78,096 0 20,968,260 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 0 35,295 0 35,295 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

42 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 5,403 0 5,403 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

46 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 497 0 497 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 21,590 0 20,000 0 41,590 

Sharkseer .......................................................................................................... [0 ] [20,000 ] 

8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 33,905 0 33,905 

9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 27,886 0 27,886

10 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 0 1,017 0 1,017 

475 

11 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 150,674 0 150,674 13 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 94,610 0 94,610 14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 197,246 0 197,246 15 JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) .............................................................. 0 140,338 0 140,338 16 JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER ......................................................................................... 0 107,182 0 –19,500 0 87,682 

General reduction ............................................................................................. [0 ] [–19,500 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 5,225 0 5,225 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

21 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,196 0 1,196 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 2,542 0 2,542 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 4,360 0 4,360 

45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS—CE2T2 .............................................................................. 0 904 0 904 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

26 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 82 874,068 82 874,068 27 GROUND BASED MIDCOURSE .................................................................................... 14 409,000 14 409,000 28 GROUND BASED MIDCOURSE AP .............................................................................. 0 115,000 0 115,000 29 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 43 593,488 43 593,488 30 AEGIS BMD AP ........................................................................................................... 0 115,206 0 115,206 31 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 13,185 0 13,185 32 ISRAELI PROGRAMS ................................................................................................... 0 80,000 0 80,000 33 SHORT RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (SRBMD) ............................................. 0 50,000 0 50,000 34 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 0 15,000 0 15,000 35 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 0 70,000 0 70,000 36 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE .................................................................. 28 97,057 28 97,057 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 10,630 0 10,630 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

23 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 207 0 207 24 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 5,592 0 5,592

476 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

20 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 1,723 0 1,723 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 3,873 0 3,873 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 13,106 0 13,106 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 589,691 0 589,691 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS AVIATION PROGRAMS 

50 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 148,351 0 148,351 51 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 57,708 0 57,708 

52 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 18,731 0 18,731 53 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 32,301 0 32,301 54 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 131,033 0 131,033 55 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 32,529 0 32,529 56 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 24,621 0 24,621 57 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 226,965 0 226,965 58 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 165,813 0 165,813 59 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 80,274 0 80,274 

SHIPBUILDING 

60 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 136,723 0 136,723 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

61 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 357,742 0 357,742 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

62 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 85,699 0 85,699 

63 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 17,863 0 17,863 

477 

64 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 112,117 0 112,117 65 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 7,313 0 7,313 66 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 14,026 0 14,026 67 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 88,608 0 88,608 68 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 438,590 0 438,590 69 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,408 0 19,408 70 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 6,281 0 6,281 71 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 18,509 0 18,509 73 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 367,433 0 367,433

CBDP 

74 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 166,418 0 166,418 75 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 144,519 0 144,519 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 167 6,786,271 0 500 167 6,786,771 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 100,025 0 100,025 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................. 0 100,025 0 0 0 100,025 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 30,077 130,526,043 –1,162 1,472,720 28,915 131,998,763 

478 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

3 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 6 60,000 0 6 60,000 

ROTARY 

11 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 1 21,246 0 1 21,246 14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 1 25,000 0 1 25,000 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

17 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 11,400 0 0 11,400 

19 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ................................................................................................. 0 32,000 0 0 32,000 20 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 51,000 0 0 51,000 32 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 50,868 0 0 50,868 33 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 3,402 0 0 3,402 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

36 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 84,387 0 0 84,387 

37 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................. 0 24,060 0 0 24,060 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 9 363,363 0 0 9 363,363 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

2 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 61 260,000 0 61 260,000 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

5 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 2,684 255,040 0 2,684 255,040 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 75 31,120 0 75 31,120 

479 

11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 7,584 624,500 0 7,584 624,500 13 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS ............................................. 24 171,138 0 24 171,138 14 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE SYSTEM (LMAMS ............................................. 1,318 112,973 0 1,318 112,973 

MODIFICATIONS 

16 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 0 225,580 0 0 225,580 21 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 122,000 0 0 122,000 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 11,746 1,802,351 0 0 11,746 1,802,351 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 BRADLEY PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 61 205,000 0 61 205,000 2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ........................................................... 66 230,359 0 66 230,359 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

6 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 8 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 6 67,000 0 6 67,000 9 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 12 42,354 0 12 42,354 

14 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 34,000 0 0 34,000 15 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 40 455,000 0 40 455,000 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) .................................................................. 0 126 0 0 126 22 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 11,842 0 0 11,842 

25 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 1,800 0 0 1,800 27 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 3,378 0 0 3,378 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

32 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 4,920 0 0 4,920 34 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 7 0 0 7 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

39 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 1,397 0 0 1,397 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 185 1,107,183 0 0 185 1,107,183 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

480 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 3,392 0 0 3,392 2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 40 0 0 40 3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 17 0 0 17 4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 189 0 0 1895 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 1,605 0 0 1,605 7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 218 0 0 218 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 484 0 0 484 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 79,400 0 0 79,400 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 973 72,985 0 973 72,985 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 63,900 0 0 63,900 

ROCKETS 

18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 22,242 0 0 22,242 19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 39,974 0 0 39,974 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 5 0 0 5 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 8 0 0 8 

MISCELLANEOUS 

27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 66 0 0 66 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 973 309,525 0 0 973 309,525 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 

481 

3 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ...................................................................... 0 20,770 0 0 20,770 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 596 115,400 0 596 115,400 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 6,682 0 0 6,682 13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 186,377 0 0 186,377 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

28 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 7,100 0 0 7,100 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

37 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ................................................................................ 0 1,560 0 0 1,560

42 TRACTOR RIDE ........................................................................................................... 0 13,190 0 0 13,190 45 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 0 9,549 0 0 9,549 47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 0 22,000 0 0 22,000 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

50 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) ...................................................................... 0 9,800 0 0 9,800 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

55 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 3 0 0 3 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

59 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 690 0 0 690 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 8,750 0 0 8,750 63 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 60,337 0 0 60,337 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

68 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 37,806 0 0 37,806 70 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 6,926 0 0 6,926 71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 2,011 0 0 2,011 75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION DEVICES (MIP) .................................................. 0 5,370 0 0 5,370 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

80 CREW ......................................................................................................................... 0 42,651 0 0 42,651 81 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAP. (MIP) ................................................. 0 20,050 0 0 20,050 82 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 12,974 0 0 12,974 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

85 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 463 0 0 463 

482 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

86 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 2,861 0 0 2,861 87 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 60 0 0 60 88 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 0 11 0 0 11 90 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 251,062 0 0 251,062 91 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 525 0 0 525 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 26,146 0 0 26,146 96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 4,050 0 0 4,050 97 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 960 0 0 960 98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 7,660 0 0 7,660 99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 165,200 0 0 165,200 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

112 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 28,475 0 0 28,475 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 0 27 0 0 27 

122 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 20,200 0 0 20,200 123 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................... 0 39,200 0 0 39,200 124 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 2,317 0 0 2,317 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

129 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 16,000 0 0 16,000 130 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) .................................................................. 0 1 0 0 1 132 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 4,850 0 0 4,850 136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 1 0 0 1 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

139 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 270 0 0 270 

141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 4,300 0 0 4,300 142 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 1,725 0 0 1,725 

483 

144 FORCE PROVIDER ...................................................................................................... 0 55,800 0 0 55,800 145 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 1,035 0 0 1,035 146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 1,980 0 0 1,980 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

151 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 17,527 0 0 17,527 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 268 0 0 268 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

159 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 25,700 0 0 25,700 

GENERATORS 

165 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 569 0 0 569 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

174 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 9,495 0 0 9,495 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

176 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR .................................................................................... 0 33 0 0 33 177 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 18,000 0 0 18,000 178 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 6,000 0 0 6,000 179 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 2,080 0 0 2,080 180 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 19,200 0 0 19,200 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 596 1,382,047 0 0 596 1,382,047 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER AIRCRAFT 

25 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 35,065 0 0 35,065 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

32 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 4,858 0 0 4,858 

34 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 5,380 0 0 5,380 44 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 2,165 0 0 2,165 49 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 9,820 0 0 9,82051 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 3,206 0 0 3,206 61 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 2,410 0 0 2,410 63 RQ–21 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 17,215 0 0 17,215 

484 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 0 80,119 0 0 0 80,119 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 0 69 82,800 69 82,800 

Buy-back Tomahawk ........................................................................................ [69 ] [82,800 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 1 1,183 0 1 1,183 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 1 381 0 1 381 

12 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 23 1,530 0 23 1,530 15 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 6,500 0 0 6,500 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

35 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 1,540 0 0 1,540 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

38 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 25 14,134 69 82,800 94 96,934 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 62,530 0 0 62,530 

2 JDAM .......................................................................................................................... 3,906 93,019 0 3,906 93,019 3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 2,163 0 0 2,163 4 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 6 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 5,334 0 0 5,334 7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 36,580 0 0 36,580 8 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 747 0 0 747 

485 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 2,538 0 0 2,538 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 1,807 0 0 1,807 15 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 2,229 0 –2,000 0 229

Excess balances ............................................................................................... [0 ] [–2,000 ] 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

19 MORTARS ................................................................................................................... 0 2,018 0 0 2,018 

21 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................... 0 632 0 0 632 22 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ............................................................................ 0 779 0 0 779 26 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS .................................................................................. 0 164 0 0 164 29 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS .............................................................................................. 0 31,001 0 0 31,001 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 3,906 246,541 0 –2,000 3,906 244,541 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

21 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 9,200 0 0 9,200 

SMALL BOATS 

28 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 19,060 0 0 19,060 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

43 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 56,950 0 0 56,950 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

77 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 3,200 0 0 3,200 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

82 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 

SONOBUOYS 

88 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 21,156 0 0 21,156 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 33,580 0 0 33,580 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 170 0 0 170 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 400 0 0 400 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 770 0 0 770

112 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 7,298 0 0 7,298 

486 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 500 0 0 500 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 6,500 0 0 6,500 128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 2,200 0 0 2,200 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 19,389 0 0 19,389 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 4,800 0 0 4,800 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 187,173 0 0 0 187,173 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 5,583 0 0 5,583 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

37 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 44,440 0 0 44,440 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

45 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 0 58,023 0 0 0 58,023 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRLIFT 

6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 1 100,000 0 1 100,000 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

17 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 21 339,740 0 21 339,740 18 RQ–20B PUMA ........................................................................................................... 0 13,500 0 0 13,500 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

487 

20 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 4,000 0 0 4,000 22 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 149,778 0 0 149,778 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

23 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 10,350 0 0 10,350 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

45 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 7,900 0 0 7,900 54 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 36,400 0 0 36,400 59 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 13,000 0 0 13,000 63 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 40,560 0 0 40,560 65 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 87,900 0 0 87,900 66 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 53,731 0 0 53,731 68 MQ–9 UAS PAYLOADS ............................................................................................... 0 16,000 0 0 16,000 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

70 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 91,500 0 0 91,500 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

71 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 32,529 0 0 32,529 72 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 22,000 0 0 22,000

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 22 1,018,888 0 0 22 1,018,888 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 48 61,600 19 22,800 67 84,400 

Buy-back JASSM-ER ......................................................................................... [19 ] [22,800 ] 

5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 2 2,600 0 2 2,600 

6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 3,000 255,000 0 3,000 255,000 7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 3,909 140,724 0 3,909 140,724 

CLASS IV 

13 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 33,602 0 0 33,602 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 6,959 493,526 19 22,800 6,978 516,326 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE CARTRIDGES 

488 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 29,587 0 0 29,587 

BOMBS 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 551,862 0 0 551,862 

6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 28,101 738,451 0 28,101 738,451 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,116 0 0 12,116 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 81,000 0 0 81,000 

SMALL ARMS 

17 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 8,500 0 0 8,500 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 28,101 1,421,516 0 0 28,101 1,421,516 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 9,680 0 0 9,680 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 9,680 0 0 9,680 4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 19,680 0 0 19,680 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

6 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 24,880 0 0 24,880 7 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................... 0 34,680 0 0 34,680 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 9,736 0 0 9,736 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

9 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES .............................................................................. 0 24,680 0 0 24,680 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

489 

10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU ............................................................ 0 9,680 0 0 9,680 11 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ................................................................. 0 9,680 0 0 9,680 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 6,156 0 0 6,156 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 56,884 0 0 56,884 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 46,236 0 0 46,236 37 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 2,500 0 0 2,500 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

45 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 27,911 0 0 27,911 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

51 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 0 13,600 0 0 13,600 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

53 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 28,800 0 0 28,800 

54 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 53,500 0 0 53,500 55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 78,562 0 0 78,562 56 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................... 0 28,055 0 0 28,055 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

59 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 2,000 0 0 2,000 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,229,364 0 0 3,229,364 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 3,725,944 0 0 0 3,725,944 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 3,800 0 0 3,800 

17 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK ............................................................ 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

25 COUNTER IED & IMPROVISED THREAT TECHNOLOGIES ............................................ 0 5,534 0 0 5,534 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 41,559 0 0 41,559 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

490 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

47 MANNED ISR .............................................................................................................. 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 

48 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 49 MH–60 BLACKHAWK .................................................................................................. 0 27,600 0 0 27,600 51 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 17,000 0 0 17,000 52 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 13,000 0 0 13,000 53 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 51,722 0 0 51,722 54 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 36,500 0 0 36,500 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

61 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 100,850 0 0 100,850 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

62 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 16,500 0 0 16,500 

64 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 7,700 0 0 7,700 67 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 59,891 0 0 59,891 68 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 21,135 0 0 21,135 69 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 71 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 10,805 0 0 10,805 73 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 126,539 0 0 126,539 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 0 572,135 0 0 0 572,135 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 52,522 12,782,468 88 103,600 52,610 12,886,068 

(491) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

492 

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 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 11,585 11,585 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 276,912 12,500 289,412 

Basic research increase ......................................................................................................... [7,500 ] Quantum information sciences .............................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 65,283 65,283 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 92,115 5,000 97,115 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 445,895 17,500 463,395 APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 28,600 28,600 6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 32,366 5,000 37,366 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 8,674 8,674 8 0602126A TRACTOR JACK ................................................................................................................................. 400 400 9 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 64,847 –5,000 59,847 

Mission systems / engine and drives coordination ............................................................... [–5,000 ] 

493 

10 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 25,571 25,571 11 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 50,183 50,183 12 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 29,502 29,502 13 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 28,500 10,000 38,500 

Pilot for cyber modeling and simulation ............................................................................... [10,000 ]

14 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 70,450 70,450 15 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 75,541 75,541 16 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 5,032 5,03217 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 12,394 12,394 18 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 40,444 2,500 42,944 

Advanced warheads technology ............................................................................................. [2,500 ] 

19 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 58,283 58,283 20 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 29,582 29,582 21 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 21,244 21,244 22 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 24,131 2,500 26,631 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

23 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 13,242 13,242 24 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 55,003 –5,000 50,003 

General Program Reduction ................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

25 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 14,958 14,958 26 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 78,159 78,159 27 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 21,862 21,862 28 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 40,566 40,566 29 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 90,075 90,075 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 919,609 10,000 929,609 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

30 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 39,338 39,338 

31 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 62,496 62,496 32 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 124,958 –5,000 119,958 

Platform design and structures systems ............................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

33 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 102,686 20,000 122,686 

494 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Accelerate ERCA gun .............................................................................................................. [20,000 ] 

34 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 119,739 72,500 192,239 

Modular scalable powertrain .................................................................................................. [2,500 ] Prototype Next Generation Combat Vehicle ............................................................................ [70,000 ] 

35 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 13,000 13,000 

36 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 8,044 8,044 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 22,631 22,631 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 25,682 25,682 40 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 3,762 3,762 41 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 4,896 4,896 42 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 6,041 6,041 43 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 31,491 31,491 44 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 61,132 61,132 45 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 16,845 16,845 46 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 183,322 5,000 188,322 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

47 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 11,104 11,104 48 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,885 5,885 49 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 61,376 61,376 50 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 9,136 9,136 51 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 25,864 13,000 38,864 

Minor MILCON ......................................................................................................................... [8,000 ] Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

52 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 34,883 2,500 37,383

PNT research ........................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

53 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 52,387 –5,000 47,387 

General program decrease ..................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

495 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1,026,698 103,000 1,129,698 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 10,777 10,777 

56 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ...................................................................... 42,802 42,802 57 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 45,254 45,254 58 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV ........................................................ 22,700 22,700 59 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 41,974 14,000 55,974 

Army UPL: Test and evaluation of M999 155mm ................................................................. [14,000 ] 

60 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM MODERNIZATION—ADV DEV ............................................................................. 119,395 119,395 

61 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 8,746 8,746 62 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 35,667 8,000 43,667 

ISR capabilities to support long range field artillery ........................................................... [8,000 ] 

63 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 7,350 7,350 

64 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 14,749 14,749 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 3,687 3,687 66 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 10,793 10,793 67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 14,248 14,248 68 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 34,284 34,284 69 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 18,044 18,044 70 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 95,660 95,660 71 0604020A CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM (CFT) ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING ............................... 38,000 38,000 72 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 9,765 9,765 73 0604113A FUTURE TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (FTUAS) ............................................................ 12,393 12,393 74 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR .................................................................... 120,374 120,374 75 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 95,347 95,347 76 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) ................................................................ 95,085 95,085 77 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM ................................................................................................................................ 52,894 52,894 79 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT & PROTOTYPING .............................................. 77,939 77,939 80 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 51,030 30,000 81,030 

Accelerate delivery and capacity for IFPC ............................................................................. [30,000 ]

81 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ............................................................ 65,817 5,000 70,817 

496 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Army Cyber Center of Excellence ........................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

82 1206120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 146,300 146,300 83 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 38,319 38,319 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 1,329,393 57,000 1,386,393 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

84 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 32,293 32,293 85 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 78,699 78,699 88 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 17,050 17,050 89 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 83,155 83,155 90 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 3,704 3,704 91 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 10,623 10,623 92 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 11,950 11,950 93 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 12,347 12,347 95 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 8,212 8,212 96 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION (ASM)—ENG DEV ................................................................ 393,613 –75,000 318,613 

Mobile Protected Firepower decrease ..................................................................................... [–75,000 ] 

97 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 139,614 139,614 98 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 4,507 4,507 99 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 49,436 49,436 

100 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 95,172 95,172 101 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 22,628 22,628 102 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 13,297 13,297 103 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 9,145 9,145 104 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) ................................................................................. 9,894 9,894 105 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 21,964 21,964 106 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 49,288 49,288 

497 

107 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ........................................................................................... 183,100 183,100 108 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 79,706 79,706 109 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 15,970 15,970 110 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 44,542 44,542 111 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 50,817 50,817 112 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 178,693 178,693 113 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 39,338 39,338 114 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 37,851 37,851 115 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 45,473 45,473 116 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 10,395 10,395 117 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................ 69,204 9,000 78,204 

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems ...................................................................................... [9,000 ] 

118 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 1,781 1,781 119 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 113,758 113,758 120 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 166,603 166,603 121 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 118,239 118,239 122 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C) ..................... 3,211 3,211 123 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 15,889 15,889 124 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 41,972 41,972 125 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................. 41,166 41,166 126 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E) ................. 5,175 5,175 127 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM (TSS) ................................................................................................. 4,496 4,496 128 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 51,178 51,178 129 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CWMD) ................................................................ 11,311 11,311 131 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR SUITE ............... 17,154 17,154 132 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 36,626 36,626 133 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER) .......................................................................... 3,829 3,829 134 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 41,928 –41,928 0 

Duplication concern in contract writing systems .................................................................. [–41,928 ] 

135 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM MODERNIZATION (MWSM) .................................................................... 28,276 28,276 

136 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 21,965 21,965 137 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2—BLOCK 1 ........................................................... 157,710 157,710 

498 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

138 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS .......................................................................................................................... 86,167 86,167 139 0605054A EMERGING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES .............................................................................................. 42,866 42,866 140 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) ................................................................................... 15,984 15,984 141 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 11,773 11,773 142 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 277,607 277,607 143 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 12,340 12,340 144 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 2,686 2,686 145 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 2,706 2,706 147 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 4,521 4,521 150 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 8,922 8,922 151 1205117A TRACTOR BEARS .............................................................................................................................. 23,170 23,170 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 3,192,689 –107,928 3,084,761 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

152 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 12,835 12,835 

153 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 12,135 12,135 154 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 82,996 25,000 107,996 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

155 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 19,821 19,821 156 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 246,574 246,574 157 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 30,430 30,430 159 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 305,759 15,000 320,759 

Increase to help manage directed energy workloads ............................................................ [15,000 ] 

160 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 62,379 62,379 

161 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 40,496 40,496 162 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 3,941 3,941 163 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 9,767 9,767 

499 

164 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 21,226 21,226 165 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 13,026 13,026 166 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 52,718 52,718 167 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 57,049 57,049 168 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 2,801 2,801 169 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 60,942 60,942 170 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 29,050 29,050 171 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 42,332 42,332 172 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 3,216 3,216 173 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT HEADQUARTERS—R&D - MHA ................................................................... 54,145 54,145 174 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED CREW TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 4,896 4,896 175 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE ............................................................. 63,011 63,011 176 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN INTEL MODERNIZATION ...................................................................... 2,636 2,636 177 0606942A ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 88,300 88,300 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .................................................................................... 1,322,481 40,000 1,362,481 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 5,955 5,955 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

181 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 8,886 8,886 

182 0603813A TRACTOR PULL ................................................................................................................................. 4,067 4,067 183 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 4,254 4,254 184 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................. 16,022 16,022 185 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE .............................................................................................................................. 4,577 4,577 186 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES (LRPF) ........................................................................................... 186,475 186,475 187 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................. 31,049 31,049 188 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 35,240 35,240 189 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 157,822 157,822 190 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 4,189 4,189 191 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 192,637 192,637 194 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 60,860 60,860 195 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS .................................................................. 52,019 52,019 196 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ................................................................................................................... 2,400 2,400 

500 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

197 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 65,369 65,369 198 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT—COCOM EXERCISE .............................................................................. 1 1 199 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) ....................................... 30,954 30,954 200 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 411,927 411,927 202 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 40,676 40,676 203 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 17,706 17,706 204 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 146 146 205 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 6,316 6,316 206 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 1,643 1,643 207 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 4,947 4,947 208 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 34,050 34,050 210 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 1,464 1,464 211 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ......................................... 249 249 212 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 79,283 79,283 213 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 154,102 154,102 216 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 12,280 12,280 217 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 68,533 68,533 218 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 68,619 68,619 220 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 2,034 2,034 223 0305172A COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 224 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 450 450 225 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 226 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 12,416 12,416 227 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 38,667 38,667 229 0305232A RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 6,180 6,180 230 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 12,863 12,863 231 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................. 4,310 4,310 

501 

233 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 53,958 53,958 234 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 12,119 12,119 235 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 7,400 7,400 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 1,922,614 0 1,922,614 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 10,159,379 119,572 10,278,951 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 119,433 5,000 124,433 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 19,237 19,237 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 458,708 10,000 468,708 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] Quantum information sciences .............................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 597,378 15,000 612,378 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 14,643 2,500 17,143 

Directed energy ....................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 124,049 124,049 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 59,607 59,607 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 36,348 36,348 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 56,197 –7,500 48,697 

ONR global growth ................................................................................................................. [–7,500 ] 

9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 83,800 83,800 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 42,998 42,998 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,349 6,349 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 58,049 20,000 78,049 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 147,771 147,771 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 37,545 37,545 

502 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................... 159,697 5,000 164,697 

Directed energy and electronic warfare/unmanned and autonomous systems .................... [5,000 ] 

16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT—ONR FIELD ACITIVITIES ............................................ 64,418 64,418 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 891,471 20,000 911,471 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

19 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 2,423 2,423 

21 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 150,245 –10,000 140,245 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

22 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 13,313 13,313 

23 0603671N NAVY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) ..................................................................... 131,502 131,502 24 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 232,996 232,996 25 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 58,657 58,657 30 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .......................... 161,859 4,500 166,359 

DE & EW/unmanned and autonomous systems .................................................................... [4,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 750,995 –5,500 745,495 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

31 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 29,747 29,747 

32 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 7,050 7,050 33 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 793 793 34 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,058 7,058 35 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 3,540 3,540 36 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 59,741 2,500 62,241 

Locust/HCUS/INP Transition ................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

37 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 62,727 –26,000 36,727 

Barracuda EDMs ahead of PDR and CDR ............................................................................. [–26,000 ] 

503 

38 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 8,570 8,570 39 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 5,440 5,440 40 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 162,222 162,222 41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 11,745 11,745 42 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 114,265 114,265 43 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 740 740 44 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,122 1,122 45 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 109,086 3,500 112,586 

Advanced submarine propulsion development ...................................................................... [3,500 ] 

46 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9,374 9,374 

47 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 89,419 18,000 107,419 

CHAMP acceleration ................................................................................................................ [18,000 ] 

48 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 13,348 13,348 49 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 256,137 256,137 50 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 22,109 22,109 51 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 29,744 29,744 52 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 27,997 27,997 53 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 16,351 16,351 54 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 514,846 514,846 55 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 103,633 29,400 133,033 

Project 2552: Align with deferred LCS–6 SSMM test ............................................................ [–5,000 ] Transfer from PE 64028N ...................................................................................................... [16,700 ] Transfer from PE 64126N ...................................................................................................... [10,100 ] Transfer from PE 64127N ...................................................................................................... [7,600 ] 

56 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 7,931 7,931 57 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 134,772 134,772 58 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 9,307 9,307 60 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 1,828 1,828 61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 43,148 43,148 62 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 5,915 5,915 63 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 19,811 19,811 64 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 25,656 25,656 

504 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

65 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 5,301 5,301 66 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 267,985 267,985 67 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 4,059 4,059 68 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 377,878 377,878 69 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 381,770 381,770 70 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 60,535 60,535 73 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,652 9,652 74 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 15,529 –15,529 

Program delay and no GLGP EMD FYDP funding .................................................................. [–15,529 ] 

75 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 27,581 27,581 76 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 101,566 101,566 77 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 223,344 223,344 78 0604014N F/A –18 INFRARED SEARCH AND TRACK (IRST) ............................................................................. 108,700 24,000 132,700 

IRST block II risk reduction .................................................................................................... [24,000 ] 

79 0604027N DIGITAL WARFARE OFFICE ................................................................................................................ 26,691 26,691 80 0604028N SMALL AND MEDIUM UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ................................................................. 16,717 –16,717 

Transfer to PE 63596N ........................................................................................................... [–16,717 ] 

81 0604029N UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE CORE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................. 30,187 30,187 82 0604030N RAPID PROTOTYPING, EXPERIMENTATION AND DEMONSTRATION. ................................................... 48,796 48,796 83 0604031N LARGE UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ....................................................................................... 92,613 –21,200 71,413 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–21,200 ] 

84 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 58,121 58,121 86 0604126N LITTORAL AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................... 17,622 –10,100 7,522 

Transfer to PE 63596N ........................................................................................................... [–10,100 ] 

87 0604127N SURFACE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................... 18,154 –7,600 10,554 

Transfer to PE 63596N ........................................................................................................... [–7,600 ] 

88 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 47,278 47,278 

505 

90 0604289M NEXT GENERATION LOGISTICS ......................................................................................................... 11,081 11,081 92 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE ................................................................................. 7,107 7,107 93 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 5,549 5,549 94 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA PROTOTYPING .............................................................................................. 87,669 87,669 95 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 132,818 132,818 96 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 7,230 7,230 97 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 143,062 143,062 99 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 8,889 8,889 

100 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 25,291 25,291 101 0304240N ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 9,300 9,300 102 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 466 466 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 4,293,713 –19,746 4,273,967 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

103 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 12,798 12,798 

104 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 32,128 32,128 105 0604214M AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 46,363 –16,200 30,163 

Lacks operational justification/need ...................................................................................... [–16,200 ] 

107 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 3,771 3,771 108 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 16,611 16,611 109 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 17,368 17,368 110 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 2,134 2,134 111 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 9,729 9,729 112 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 57,688 57,688 113 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 223,565 223,565 114 0604245M H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 58,097 58,097 116 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 42,485 42,485 117 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 143,079 143,079 118 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 20,980 10,000 30,980 

Increase to advance aircrew physiological monitoring ......................................................... [10,000 ] 

119 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 147,419 95,300 242,719 

UPL—EA–18G Advanced Modes / Cognitive EW ................................................................... [95,300 ] 

506 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

120 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 89,824 31,600 121,424 

UPL—EA–18G Offensive Airborne Electronic Attack Special Mission Pod ........................... [31,600 ] 

121 0604273M EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 245,064 245,064 

123 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 459,529 459,529 124 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 3,272 3,272 125 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) INCREMENT II ........................................................................... 115,253 115,253 126 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 397,403 397,403 127 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 939 50,000 50,939 

Mk 41 VLS integration ............................................................................................................ [50,000 ] 

128 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 104,448 104,448 129 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 165,881 19,000 184,881 

Navy UPL: SM–6 Blk 1B 21′′ rocket motor ............................................................................ [19,000 ] 

130 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 10,831 10,831 

131 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 33,429 33,429 132 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 35,635 35,635 133 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 126,932 126,932 134 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 62,448 62,448 135 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 9,710 9,710 136 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER CONVERSION ................................................................................ 19,303 19,303 137 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ...................................................................... 27,059 27,059 138 0604530N ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ................................................................................................ 184,106 184,106 139 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 148,233 148,233 140 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 60,824 60,824 141 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 60,062 6,000 66,062 

Planning to support FY21 award of LHA–9 ........................................................................... [6,000 ] 

142 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 4,642 4,642 

144 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 25,756 25,756 

507 

145 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 95,147 95,147 146 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 7,107 7,107 147 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 6,539 6,539 148 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 441 441 149 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 180,391 180,391 150 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 178,538 178,538 151 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 120,507 120,507 152 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 29,715 29,715 153 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 8,095 8,095 154 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 121,026 121,026 155 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 66,566 66,566 156 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 65,494 65,494 159 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 14,005 14,005 160 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 268,567 –90,100 178,467 

Duplication concern in contract writing systems .................................................................. [–26,300 ] Lengthy delivery timelines for Navy Personnel and Pay System ........................................... [–63,800 ] 

161 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 5,618 5,618 

162 0605212M CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 326,945 326,945 164 0605215N MISSION PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 32,714 32,714 165 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS .......................................................................................................................... 51,486 51,486 166 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 1,444 1,444 167 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS .............................................................................................................................. 1,298 1,298 168 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION (UCA) ............................................................................................. 718,942 718,942 169 0605450M JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 6,759 6,759 171 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 37,296 37,296 172 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME (MMA) INCREMENT III ........................................................................... 160,389 160,389 173 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ......................... 98,223 98,223 174 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ..................... 2,260 2,260 175 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 161,264 161,264 180 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 44,098 44,098 182 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 6,808 6,808 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 6,042,480 105,600 6,148,080 

508 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

183 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 94,576 94,576 

184 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 10,981 10,981 185 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 77,014 77,014 186 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 48 48187 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 3,942 3,942 188 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 48,797 48,797 189 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER ............................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 191 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 1,029 1,029 192 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 87,565 –9,000 78,565 

Insufficient budget justification ............................................................................................. [–9,000 ] 

193 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 4,231 4,231 194 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 1,072 1,072 195 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 97,471 97,471 196 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 373,834 373,834 197 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 21,554 21,554 198 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 16,227 16,227 200 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 24,303 24,303 201 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 43,262 43,262 202 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 41,918 41,918 203 0606942M ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 7,000 7,000 204 0606942N ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 48,800 48,800 205 0305327N INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 1,682 1,682 206 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS (DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES) ......................................... 1,579 1,579 208 1206867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 8,684 8,684 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 1,020,569 –9,000 1,011,569 

509 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,549,503 1,549,503 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

210 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................... 5,426 5,426 

211 0604840M F–35 C2D2 ....................................................................................................................................... 259,122 259,122 212 0604840N F–35 C2D2 ....................................................................................................................................... 252,360 252,360 213 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) .............................................................................. 130,515 130,515 214 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 3,127 3,127 215 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 157,679 157,679 216 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 43,198 43,198 217 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 11,311 11,311 218 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 39,313 39,313 219 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 193,086 193,086 220 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 25,014 25,014 221 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 11,661 11,661 222 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 282,395 8,700 291,095 

Restore MST to maintain 2020 IOC ....................................................................................... [8,700 ]

223 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 36,959 35,000 71,959 

Additional TRAPS units ........................................................................................................... [35,000 ] 

224 0204313N SHIP-TOWED ARRAY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 15,454 15,454 225 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 6,073 6,073 226 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 45,029 45,029 227 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 104,903 104,903 228 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 4,544 4,544 229 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 66,889 66,889 230 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 120,762 –99,240 21,522 

Cancel ER program ................................................................................................................ [–99,240 ] 

231 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 104,696 12,000 116,696 

UPL—Tactical Targeting Network Technology acceleration .................................................. [12,000 ] 

232 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 28,421 28,421 

233 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 94,155 94,155 234 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 121,805 15,000 136,805 

510 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UPL—F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet Engine Enhancements ........................................................ [15,000 ] 

235 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 117,028 117,028 

236 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 174,779 174,779 237 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 4,826 4,826 238 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 97,152 97,152 239 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 30,156 30,156 240 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 39,976 39,976 241 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE ....................................................................................................... 22,637 –22,637 

Lacks operational justification/need ...................................................................................... [–22,637 ] 

242 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 40,121 40,121 243 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 32,473 32,473 249 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 23,697 23,697250 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 44,228 44,228 252 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 6,081 6,081 253 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 8,529 8,529 254 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 41,212 41,212 255 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 7,687 7,687 256 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 42,846 42,846 257 0305220N MQ–4C TRITON ................................................................................................................................ 14,395 14,395 258 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 9,843 9,843 259 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 524 524 260 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 5,360 5,360 261 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 10,914 10,914 262 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 81,231 81,231 263 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 5,956 5,956 264 0305421N RQ–4 MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 219,894 219,894 265 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 7,097 7,097 

511 

266 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 36,560 36,560 267 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 7,284 7,284 268 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 39,174 39,174 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 4,885,060 –51,177 4,833,883 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 18,481,666 55,177 18,536,843 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 348,322 10,000 358,322 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] Quantum information sciences .............................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 154,991 154,991 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 14,506 2,500 17,006 

Directed energy research ........................................................................................................ [2,500 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 517,819 12,500 530,319 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 125,373 4,000 129,373 

Advanced materials analysis ................................................................................................. [4,000 ] 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 130,547 5,000 135,547 

High speed systems technology (hypersonic vehicle structures) .......................................... [5,000 ] 

6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 112,518 112,518 

7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 190,919 22,500 213,419 

Affordable Responsive Modular Rocket .................................................................................. [15,000 ]

Multi-mode propulsion ............................................................................................................ [3,000 ] Solid rocket motor produce on-demand ................................................................................. [2,000 ] Turbine engine technology ...................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 166,534 –7,500 159,034 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–7,500 ] 

9 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT— MAJOR HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES ....................... 8,288 8,288 

11 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 112,841 112,841 

512 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

12 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 141,898 4,000 145,898 

Skywave technologies laboratory ............................................................................................ [4,000 ] 

13 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 162,420 162,420 14 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 43,359 12,500 55,859 

Directed energy research ........................................................................................................ [2,500 ] 

High powered microwave ....................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

15 1206601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 117,645 6,000 123,645 

Wargaming and simulator lab ............................................................................................... [6,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,312,342 46,500 1,358,842 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

16 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 34,426 –2,500 31,926 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] Materials affordability ............................................................................................................ [2,500 ] 

17 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 15,150 1,000 16,150 

Prevention/enhanced maintainability technologies ................................................................ [1,000 ] 

18 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 39,968 39,968 

19 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 121,002 10,000 131,002 

Design/Manufacture aircraft aft body drag reduction devices ............................................. [10,000 ] 

20 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 115,462 24,000 139,462 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [9,000 ] Multi-mode propulsion ............................................................................................................ [5,000 ] Technology for the Sustainment of Strategic Systems .......................................................... [10,000 ] 

21 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 55,319 5,000 60,319 

RF/EO/IR warning and countermeasures ............................................................................... [5,000 ] 

22 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 54,895 54,895 23 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 10,674 10,674 

513 

24 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 36,463 36,463 25 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 194,981 194,981 26 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 43,368 10,000 53,368 

Demonstrator laser weapon system ....................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

27 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 42,025 42,025 28 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 51,064 51,064 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 814,797 47,500 862,297 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

30 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,568 5,568 

32 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 18,194 18,194 33 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2,305 2,305 35 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 41,856 41,856 37 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE—BOMBER ..................................................................................................... 2,314,196 2,314,196 38 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 14,894 14,894 39 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SENSORS ......................................................................................... 34,585 34,585 40 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS CENTER (NAOC) RECAP ......................................................................... 9,740 9,740 41 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 12,960 12,960 42 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 71,501 71,501 43 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS .............................................................................. 62,618 62,618 46 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D .......................................................................... 28,350 10,000 38,350 

Tanker prototype ..................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 1,186,075 222,800 1,408,875 

Acceleration of Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon ....................................................... [100,000 ] Low cost attritable aircraft prototype .................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

Rapid Sustainment Initiative ................................................................................................. [42,800 ] 

49 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ........................................................................................ 345,041 69,400 414,441 

UPL program acceleration ...................................................................................................... [69,400 ] 

50 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 503,997 503,997 51 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 40,326 40,326 52 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP) .................................................................................................................. 29,800 29,800 54 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) .......................................................................... 41,880 41,880 

514 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

55 0305601F MISSION PARTNER ENVIRONMENTS ................................................................................................. 10,074 10,074 56 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 253,825 253,825 57 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 16,325 16,325 59 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ....................................................................... 17,577 –17,577 

Duplication concern ................................................................................................................ [–17,577 ] 

60 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 286,629 286,62961 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 7,940 7,940 62 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 138,052 138,052 63 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 39,338 39,338 64 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 383,113 383,113 65 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 91,018 91,018 66 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 45,542 45,542 67 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE (PTES) ...................................................................... 51,419 51,419 68 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL SERVICE (PTS) ............................................................................................. 29,776 29,776 69 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES (PSCS)—AGGREGATED ................................................................. 29,379 29,379 70 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 366,050 –50,000 316,050 

Space RCO Solar Power Project—Early to need ................................................................... [–50,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 6,529,943 234,623 6,764,566 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

71 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS ................................................................... 39,602 39,602 

72 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 58,531 58,531 73 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 4,468 4,468 74 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 1,909 1,909 75 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 207,746 50,000 257,746 

Increase to accelerate 21st Century Battle Management Command and Control ............... [50,000 ] 

76 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 14,421 14,421 

515 

77 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 73,158 73,158 81 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 7,153 7,153 83 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 58,590 58,590 84 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,990 2,990 85 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 20,028 20,028 86 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ..................................................................................................... 15,787 15,787 87 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 8,919 8,919 88 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 35,895 35,895 89 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 69,001 69,001 90 0307581F JSTARS RECAP ................................................................................................................................. 0 50,000 50,000 

Continue JSTARS recap GMTI radar development .................................................................. [50,000 ] 

91 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 614,920 85,000 699,920 

UPL Program acceleration ...................................................................................................... [85,000 ] 

92 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 172,902 172,902 97 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 88,170 88,170 98 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 265,465 265,465 99 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER ........................................................................................................ 457,652 457,652 

105 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL BATTLE MGMT ..................................................................................... 3,617 3,617 106 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 261,758 261,758 107 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 91,907 91,907 108 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 137,095 137,095 109 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON .............................................................................................................. 43,175 43,175 110 0207423F ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 14,888 14,888 111 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 1,015 1,015 116 0401310F C–32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT RECAPITALIZATION .......................................................................... 7,943 7,943 117 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT RECAPITALIZATION (PAR) ........................................................................ 673,032 673,032 118 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 13,653 13,653 119 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR ............................................................................................ 939 939 120 1203269F GPS IIIC ............................................................................................................................................ 451,889 451,889 121 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 46,668 46,668 122 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 20,676 20,676 123 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 134,463 134,463 

516 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

124 1206426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 20,215 20,215 125 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 151,506 151,506 126 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 27,337 27,337 127 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 3,970 3,970 128 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 60,565 60,565 129 1206442F EVOLVED SBIRS ............................................................................................................................... 643,126 100,000 743,126 

Accelerate sensor development .............................................................................................. [100,000 ] 

130 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 245,447 245,447 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 5,272,191 285,000 5,557,191 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

131 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 34,256 34,256 

132 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 91,844 15,000 106,844 

Test infrastructure improvements .......................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

133 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 34,614 34,614 135 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 18,043 18,043 136 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 692,784 692,784 137 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL POWER ................................................................................................. 233,924 233,924 138 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG & COMBAT SYS ............................................................................ 263,488 263,488 139 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL REACH ................................................................................................. 153,591 153,591 140 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, NETWORK, & BUS SYS ......................................................................... 232,315 232,315 141 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL BATTLE MGMT ..................................................................................... 169,868 169,868 142 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY INTEGRATION ................................................................................. 226,219 226,219 143 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED PRGM TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 38,400 38,400 144 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 125,761 125,761 147 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 10,642 10,642 148 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 162,216 162,216 

517 

149 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 28,888 28,888 150 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 35,285 35,285 153 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 20,545 20,545 154 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 12,367 12,367 155 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,448 1,448 157 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 3,998 3,998 158 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 23,254 23,254 159 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 169,912 169,912 160 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER—MHA ................................................................................... 10,508 10,508 161 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 19,721 19,721 162 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 25,620 25,620 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 2,839,511 15,000 2,854,511 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 16,534,124 16,534,124 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

165 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 11,344 11,344 

167 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 47,287 –34,146 13,141 

Poor agile development implementation and lenghty delivery timeline ............................... [–34,146 ] 

168 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 32,770 32,770 

169 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ..................................................................... 68,368 68,368 170 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 32,574 32,574 171 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................................ 26,112 26,112 172 0606942F ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 99,100 99,100 173 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 280,414 14,800 295,214 

Air Force requested realignment ............................................................................................ [14,800 ] 

174 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 5,955 5,955 175 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 76,030 76,030 176 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 105,561 105,561 177 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 156,047 156,047 179 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 10,442 10,442 180 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC PLANNING & ANALYSIS NETWORK ............................................................ 22,833 22,833 181 0101328F ICBM REENTRY VEHICLES ................................................................................................................ 18,412 18,412 

518 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

183 0102110F UH–1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 288,022 288,022 184 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................ 9,252 9,252 186 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 115,345 115,345 188 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 26,738 26,738 189 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 191,564 191,564 190 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 192,883 192,883 191 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 15,238 15,238 192 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 603,553 603,553 193 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 549,501 549,501 194 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 37,230 37,230 195 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 61,393 61,393 196 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 647 647 198 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 14,891 14,891 199 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 13,901 13,901 200 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 121,203 121,203 202 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 60,062 60,062 203 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 106,102 106,102 204 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 6,413 6,413 205 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 120,664 10,000 130,664 

Increase to accelerate 21st Century Battle Management Command and Control ............... [10,000 ] 

206 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 2,659 2,659 

208 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 10,316 10,316 209 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 6,149 6,149 210 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,738 1,738 211 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 13,297 13,297 212 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS ................................................................................... 1,788 1,788 213 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) ................................................... 14,888 14,888 

519 

214 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 24,699 24,699 215 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 17,078 17,078 216 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 6,141 6,141 218 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,225 4,225 219 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 63,653 63,653 220 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION ....................................................................................................................... 6,949 6,949 221 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 40,526 40,526 222 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 24,166 24,166 223 0208097F JOINT CYBER COMMAND AND CONTROL (JCC2) .............................................................................. 13,000 13,000 224 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP) .................................................................................................................. 28,759 28,759 229 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON NETWORK (GSIN) ....................................................................... 3,579 3,579 230 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES) ................................................................... 29,620 29,620 237 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR BATTLESPACE AWARENESS ............... 6,633 6,633 238 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 57,758 57,758 240 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 99,088 99,088 241 0303133F HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 51,612 51,612 242 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 34,612 34,612 244 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT—DATA INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 2,170 2,170 246 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 106,873 106,873 247 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3,472 3,472 250 0305015F C2 AIR OPERATIONS SUITE—C2 INFO SERVICES ........................................................................... 8,608 8,608 251 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 1,586 1,586 252 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,492 4,492 254 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 26,942 26,942 255 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 6,271 6,271 256 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 8,383 8,383 259 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 418 418 261 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 3,845 3,845 268 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 48,518 48,518 270 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 175,334 175,334 271 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 14,223 14,223 272 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 24,554 24,554 

520 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

273 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 221,690 221,690 274 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 14,288 14,288 275 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 51,527 51,527 276 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 26,579 26,579 278 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 8,464 8,464 280 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 4,303 4,303 284 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2) ....................................................................... 2,466 2,466 285 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 4,117 4,117 287 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 105,988 105,988 288 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 25,071 25,071 289 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 48,299 48,299 290 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 15,409 15,409 291 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 4,334 4,334 292 0401218F KC–135S .......................................................................................................................................... 3,493 3,493 293 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 6,569 6,569 294 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 3,172 3,172 295 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 18,502 18,502 296 0401840F AMC COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 1,688 1,688 297 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 2,541 2,541 298 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,897 1,897 299 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & OVERHAUL SYSTEM ................................................................................ 50,933 –35,060 15,873 

Poor agile development implementation ................................................................................ [–35,060 ]

300 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 13,787 13,787 301 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 4,497 4,497 302 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 2,022 2,022 303 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 108 108 304 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 2,023 2,023 

521 

305 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,772 3,772 306 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 6,358 6,358 307 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,418 1,418 308 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 99,734 –11,816 87,918 

Poor agile development implementation ................................................................................ [–11,816 ]

309 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 14,161 14,161 310 1202247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 26,986 26,986 311 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS TERMINALS (FAB-T) ........................................................................... 80,168 80,168 312 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 17,808 17,808 314 1203165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL SEGMENTS) ................................ 8,937 8,937 315 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 59,935 59,935 316 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 21,019 21,019 317 1203179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 8,568 8,568 318 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 10,641 10,641 319 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 144,543 144,543 320 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 16,278 16,278 321 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 72,256 –10,000 62,256 

Assumed cost savings ............................................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

322 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE CENTER ................................................................................................ 42,209 42,209 325 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 19,778 19,778 326 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 19,572 19,572 327 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 513,235 513,235 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 22,891,740 –66,222 22,825,518 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 40,178,343 574,901 40,753,244 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 37,023 37,023 

2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 422,130 7,500 429,630 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] Critical materials .................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

522 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 42,702 10,000 52,702 

Quantum information sciences .............................................................................................. [5,000 ] University-lab research partnership ....................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 47,825 10,000 57,825 

TBI Treatment for blast injuries ............................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 85,919 85,919 6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 30,412 30,412 7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 42,103 42,103 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 708,114 27,500 735,614 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19,170 2,500 21,670 

Insensitive munitions ............................................................................................................. [2,500 ] 

9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 101,300 101,300 

11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 51,596 51,596 12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 60,688 –7,500 53,188 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–7,500 ] 

13 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 395,317 395,317 14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 38,640 38,640 15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 192,674 192,674 16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 14,969 14,969 17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 335,466 –2,500 332,966 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [2,500 ] MAD-FIRES reduction .............................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 226,898 –15,000 211,898 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 333,847 333,847 

523 

20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................ 161,151 161,151 21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 9,300 9,300 22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 35,921 35,921 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,976,937 –22,500 1,954,437 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 25,598 25,598 

24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 125,271 –14,000 111,271 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–14,000 ] 

25 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 24,532 24,532 27 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................ 299,858 299,858 28 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 13,017 13,017 

29 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 0 13,400 13,400 

MDA UPL: Accelerate hypersonic missile defense ................................................................. [13,400 ] 

31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 20,365 22,200 42,565 

Accelerate hypersonic missile defense .................................................................................. [22,200 ] 

32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 18,644 18,644 34 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 277,603 5,000 282,603 

Hypersonics weapons programs development and transition ............................................... [5,000 ] 

35 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 254,671 110,000 364,671 

Blackjack increase .................................................................................................................. [110,000 ] 

36 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 19,472 19,472 37 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 37,263 37,263 38 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS—MHA ............................................................. 13,621 13,621 39 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 189,753 189,753 40 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX) ........................................................................ 29,364 500 29,864 

Defense technology innovation ............................................................................................... [500 ] 

41 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ............................................................................................................... 83,143 20,000 103,143 

Commercial SAR satellites ..................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

42 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 142,826 142,826 43 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 161,128 161,128 44 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 12,918 12,918 

524 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

45 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 106,049 106,049 46 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 12,696 –7,500 5,196 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–7,500 ] 

47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 114,637 7,000 121,637 

Enhancing cybersecurity for small vendors ........................................................................... [5,000 ] Eye protection system ............................................................................................................ [2,000 ] 

48 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 49,667 2,500 52,167 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

49 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 48,338 48,338 50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 11,778 1,000 12,778 

General program increase ...................................................................................................... [1,000 ] 

52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 76,514 10,000 86,514 

Readiness Increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 168,931 5,000 173,931 

Tunable filter, support for microelectronics development ..................................................... [5,000 ] 

54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 5,992 5,992 

55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 111,099 7,500 118,599 

Support for the Electronics Resurgence Initiative ................................................................. [7,500 ] 

56 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 185,984 185,984 

57 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 438,569 –10,000 428,569 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

58 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 190,128 1,500 191,628 

Sensors and processing systems technology ......................................................................... [1,500 ] 

59 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 13,564 13,564 

60 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 15,050 15,050 61 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 69,626 –10,000 59,626 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

525 

62 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 19,415 19,415 63 0603924D8Z HIGH ENERGY LASER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............................................................. 69,533 69,533 64 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 96,389 15,000 111,389 

Hypersonics and directed energy test .................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

Workforce development ........................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

65 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 40,582 10,000 50,582 

Readiness Increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

66 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 26,644 26,644 67 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 79,380 79,380 

300 8888 NATIONAL SECURITY INNOVATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 0 150,000 150,000 

Establish office for capital investment ................................................................................. [150,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,699,612 339,100 4,038,712 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

68 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 28,140 28,140 69 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 92,222 92,222 

70 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA & INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................... 2,506 2,506 71 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 40,016 10,000 50,016 

Readiness Increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

72 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 214,173 184,100 398,273 

MDA UPL: USFK JEON ............................................................................................................. [184,100 ] 

73 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 926,359 –208,000 718,359 

Reduce FY19 Numbers ........................................................................................................... [–208,000 ] 

74 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 129,886 129,886 75 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 220,876 24,000 244,876 

MDA UPL: USFK JEON ............................................................................................................. [24,000 ] 

76 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 540,926 540,926 77 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 422,348 422,348 78 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 767,539 767,539 81 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

475,168 –50,000 425,168 

Inconsistent capability delivery .............................................................................................. [–50,000 ] 

526 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

82 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 48,767 48,767 83 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 54,925 54,925 84 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 16,916 16,916 85 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 149,715 –33,000 116,715 

Reduce FY19 Numbers ........................................................................................................... [–33,000 ] 

86 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 300,000 300,000 87 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 365,681 71,900 437,581 

MDA UPL: USFK JEON ............................................................................................................. [71,900 ] 

88 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 517,852 –31,500 486,352 

MDA UPL: USFK JEON ............................................................................................................. [4,500 ] Reduce FY19 Numbers ........................................................................................................... [–36,000 ] 

89 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 11,347 11,347 90 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 8,528 8,528 91 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,477 5,000 8,477 

Corrosion prevention ............................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

92 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 148,822 80,000 228,822 

Laser scaling for boost phase intercept ................................................................................ [80,000 ] 

93 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 58,607 58,607 94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING ...... 12,993 12,993 95 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE ..................................................................................................................... 120,444 10,500 130,944 

Accelerate hypersonic missile defense .................................................................................. [10,500 ] 

96 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 1,431,702 50,000 1,481,702 

Quartermaster Pathfinder ....................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

97 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 233,142 5,500 238,642 

New trust approach development .......................................................................................... [5,500 ] 

98 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 99,333 99,333 99 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON DEVELOPMENT ......................... 3,781 3,781 

527 

100 0604673C PACIFIC DISCRIMINATING RADAR ..................................................................................................... 95,765 95,765 101 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA) ........................................................ 3,768 3,768 103 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........ 22,435 22,435 104 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR (LRDR) ............................................................................... 164,562 164,562 105 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS ............................................................................ 561,220 –139,400 421,820 

Reduce FY19 Numbers ........................................................................................................... [–139,400 ] 

106 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT TEST ................................................ 61,017 61,017 

107 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST .............................................................................................................................. 95,756 95,756 108 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR TEST .................................................................................... 81,001 81,001 109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 27,692 27,692 111 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ............................................................. 81,934 –9,300 72,634 

Reduce FY19 Numbers ........................................................................................................... [–9,300 ] 

112 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE ........................................................................................................... 8,256 8,256 113 0300206R ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 2,600 2,600 114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 3,104 3,104 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 985 985 116 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 36,955 36,955 117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 16,484 73,000 89,484 

MDA UPL: Initiate missile defense tracking system .............................................................. [73,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ......................................... 8,709,725 42,800 8,752,525 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 8,333 8,333 119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 263,414 263,414 

120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 388,701 388,701 121 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 19,503 19,503 122 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 6,163 6,163 123 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 11,988 –11,988 

Lengthy delivery timelines ...................................................................................................... [–11,988 ] 

124 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 296 296 125 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 1,489 1,489 126 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 9,590 9,590 

528 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

127 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 3,173 3,173 128 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION .................................................................................................... 2,105 1,000 3,105 

Data and advanced analytics ................................................................................................ [1,000 ] 

129 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INITIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM ............................................................. 21,156 21,156 130 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 10,731 10,731 132 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 6,374 –6,374 

Duplication concern ................................................................................................................ [–6,374 ] 

133 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 56,178 2,500 58,678 

New trust approach development .......................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

134 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 2,512 2,512 135 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 2,435 2,435 

136 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................... 17,048 17,048 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 831,189 –14,862 816,327 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 45,604 45,604 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

137 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 6,661 6,661 

138 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 4,088 4,088 139 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 258,796 10,000 268,796 

Advanced hypersonic wind tunnel experimentation ............................................................... [10,000 ] 

140 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 31,356 31,356 

141 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................... 65,646 65,646 142 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 84,184 5,000 89,184 

Cyber range capacity and development ................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

143 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 22,576 –5,000 17,576 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 52,565 52,565 

529 

146 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 38,872 38,872 147 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 3,534 3,534 148 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 5,050 5,050 149 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 11,450 11,450 150 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 1,693 1,693 151 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 102,883 102,883 159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 2,545 2,545 160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 24,487 24,487 161 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 56,853 56,853 162 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 24,914 24,914 163 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 20,179 5,000 25,179 

Improve software testing capabilities ................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

164 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 13,643 13,643 165 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ—DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ...................................... 4,124 4,124 166 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 5,768 5,768 167 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 1,030 1,030 168 0606589D8W DEFENSE DIGITAL SERVICE (DDS) DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT ........................................................... 1,000 1,000 169 0606942C ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 3,400 3,400 

170 0606942S ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS CYBER VULNERABILITIES .......................................................... 4,000 4,000 171 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 3,008 3,008 172 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 6,658 6,658 175 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 652 652 176 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 1,005 1,005 177 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 21,363 21,363 180 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES AND INNOVATION INVESTMENTS ........................................................ 109,529 109,529 181 0306310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .......................................................................... 1,244 1,244 184 0804768J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)—NON-MHA ............. 42,940 42,940 185 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 28,626 28,626 187 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER (JSP) ...................................................................................................... 5,104 5,104 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 1,117,030 15,000 1,132,030 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,877,898 10,000 3,887,898 

530 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Classified increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

189 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 9,750 9,750 

190 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,855 1,855 191 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 304 304 192 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 10,376 10,376 193 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 5,915 5,915 194 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 5,869 5,869 195 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 48,741 48,741 196 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 3,037 3,037 197 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 62,814 62,814 203 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 16,561 16,561 204 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 14,769 14,769 205 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 17,579 17,579 207 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 31,737 31,737 208 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 7,940 7,940 209 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 229,252 229,252 210 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 19,611 19,611 211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 46,900 46,900 212 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 7,570 7,570 213 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (JIE) ........................................................................................ 7,947 7,947 215 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 39,400 39,400 224 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 6,262 –3,000 3,262 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] 

225 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 16,780 16,780 227 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 6,286 6,286 230 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 2,970 2,970 

531 

233 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 5,954 5,000 10,954 

Personnel security and continuous evaluation ...................................................................... [5,000 ] 

234 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,198 2,198 

240 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 6,889 6,889 242 0708012K LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 1,317 1,317 243 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS ............................................................................................................ 1,770 1,770 244 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM .............................................................................. 1,805 1,805 246 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 18,403 18,403 248 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 184,993 184,993 249 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 10,625 10,625 250 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 102,307 102,307 251 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 46,942 46,942 252 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 2,479 2,479 253 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR ................................................................................................................................ 27,270 27,270 254 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 1,121 1,121 255 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 42,471 42,471 256 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 4,780 4,780 257 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 12,176 12,176 258 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 2,323 2,323 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 4,973,946 12,000 4,985,946 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 22,016,553 399,038 22,415,591 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 85,685 85,685 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 64,332 64,332 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 70,992 10,900 81,892 

Increase for test and evaluation technologies ...................................................................... [10,900 ] 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 221,009 10,900 231,909 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 221,009 10,900 231,909 

532 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 91,056,950 1,159,588 92,216,538 

533 

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 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

56 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ......................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

58 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV ........................................................... 1,500 1,500 61 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 76 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) .................................................................. 23,000 23,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 28,500 0 28,500 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

88 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE .................................................................................................................................. 12,000 12,000 

100 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV ................................................ 119,300 119,300 

125 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................... 66,760 66,760 128 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................... 2,670 2,670 136 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 34,933 34,933 147 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 .................................................................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 236,863 0 236,863 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

184 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................... 2,548 2,548 185 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE ................................................................................................................................ 7,780 7,780 

206 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,000 2,000 209 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV .............................................................. 8,000 8,000 216 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 23,199 23,199 226 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 14,000 14,000 

534 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

231 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 2,214 2,214 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 59,741 0 59,741 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 325,104 0 325,104 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 18,000 18,000 

61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 13,900 13,900 74 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 1,400 1,400 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 33,300 0 33,300 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

149 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) ...................................................................................... 1,100 1,100 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 1,100 0 1,100 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 117,282 117,282 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

236 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 16,130 16,130 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 133,412 0 133,412 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 167,812 0 167,812 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

65 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 1,100 1,100 

70 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE ................................................................................................. 12,395 12,395 

535 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 13,495 0 13,495 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 188,127 188,127 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

186 0205219F MQ–9 UAV .......................................................................................................................................... 4,500 4,500 

187 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED ELECTRONIC WARFARE ................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 188 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 217 0207610F BATTLEFIELD ABN COMM NODE (BACN) ............................................................................................ 42,349 42,349 228 0208288F INTEL DATA APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 254 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ............................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 268 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ...................................................................................................................................... 22,100 22,100 272 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 29,500 29,500 310 1202247F AF TENCAP ......................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 300,776 0 300,776 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 314,271 0 314,271 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................. 25,000 25,000 

26 0603134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT SIMULATION ..................................................................................... 13,648 13,648 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 38,648 0 38,648 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING ........ 242,668 242,668 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ............................................ 242,668 0 242,668 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 192,131 192,131 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

250 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 3,632 3,632 

251 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................ 11,040 11,040 253 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR .................................................................................................................................. 11,700 11,700 

536 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

254 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................... 725 725 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 219,228 0 219,228 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 500,544 0 500,544 TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 1,307,731 0 1,307,731 

(537) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

538 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,076,360 2,076,360 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 107,946 107,946 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 732,485 732,485 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,169,508 1,169,508 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,180,460 1,180,460 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,467,500 1,467,500 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 4,285,211 4,285,211 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 482,201 482,201 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,536,851 1,536,851 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 8,274,299 8,274,299 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 3,516,859 3,516,859 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 438,733 438,733 180 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 231,518 231,518 190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 150,268 150,268 200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 195,964 14,300 210,264 

SOUTHCOM ABN GFE Sensor (GEOINT/SIGINT) ............................................................................................................... [4,200 ] SOUTHCOM Cyber HUMINT (CME/OPS) ........................................................................................................................... [1,000 ] SOUTHCOM OSINT/PAI (CME/LIC/TOOLS) ........................................................................................................................ [1,600 ] SOUTHCOM Overland Airborne ISR Flight Hours ............................................................................................................ [7,200 ] 

539 

SOUTHCOM SIGINT Suite COMSAT RF ............................................................................................................................ [300 ] 

210 US FORCES KOREA .................................................................................................................................................................. 59,625 59,625 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 25,905,788 14,300 25,920,088 

MOBILIZATION 

220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 370,941 370,941 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 573,560 573,560 240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 7,678 7,678 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 952,179 0 952,179 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

250 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 135,832 135,832 

260 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 54,819 54,819 270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 69,599 69,599 280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 518,998 518,998 290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 1,020,073 1,020,073 300 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,082,190 1,082,190 310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 220,399 220,399 320 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 611,482 611,482 330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 698,962 –200,000 498,962 

Marketing Cuts ............................................................................................................................................................... [–200,000 ] 

340 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 162,049 162,049 350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 215,622 215,622 

360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 176,914 176,914 370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS .......................................................................................................................... 174,430 174,430 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 5,141,369 –200,000 4,941,369 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,259,622 1,259,622 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

540 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 588,047 588,047 400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 931,462 931,462 410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 696,114 696,114 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 461,637 461,637 430 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 447,564 447,564 440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,069,127 2,069,127 450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 261,021 261,021 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 379,541 379,541 470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,699,767 1,699,767 480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 192,686 192,686 490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 240,917 240,917 500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ................................................................................................................... 291,569 291,569 510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................. 442,656 442,656 520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 48,251 48,251 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 10,009,981 0 10,009,981 UNDISTRIBUTED 

1 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –200,000 –200,000 

Army misrepresentation of civilian pay budget request ............................................................................................... [–200,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –200,000 –200,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 42,009,317 –385,700 41,623,617 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

541 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 13,867 13,867 020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 536,438 536,438 030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 113,225 113,225 040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 551,141 551,141 050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 89,073 89,073 060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 409,531 409,531 070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 101,411 101,411 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 60,114 60,114 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 595,728 595,728 100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 304,658 304,658 110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 22,175 22,175 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,797,361 0 2,797,361 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 11,832 11,832 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18,218 18,218 140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 25,069 25,069 150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,248 6,248 160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 58,181 58,181 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 119,548 0 119,548 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 2,916,909 0 2,916,909 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 810,269 810,269 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 193,402 193,402 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 753,815 753,815 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 84,124 84,124 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 31,881 31,881 

542 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 973,874 973,874 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 784,086 784,086 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 51,353 51,353 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 221,633 221,633 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,129,942 1,129,942 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 919,947 919,947 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 1,010,524 1,010,524 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,964,850 0 6,964,850 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10,017 10,017 

140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 72,746 72,746 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 83,105 83,105 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 10,678 10,678 170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 254,753 254,753 180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 3,146 3,146 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 434,445 0 434,445 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 7,399,295 0 7,399,295 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 5,372,399 5,372,399 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,023,351 2,023,351 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 56,225 56,225 

543 

040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 156,081 156,081 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 682,379 682,379 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 1,253,756 1,253,756 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 66,649 66,649 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 939,368 939,368 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4,439,566 4,439,566 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 997,663 997,663 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 8,751,526 8,751,526 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 2,168,876 2,168,876 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 1,349,593 1,700 1,351,293 

SOUTHCOM CCO Sensor Integration ............................................................................................................................... [1,700 ] 

150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 215,255 215,255 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 632,446 632,446 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 373,046 373,046 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,452,075 1,452,075 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 153,719 153,719 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 63,039 63,039 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 89,339 89,339 230 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 8,475 8,475 240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 424,088 424,088 260 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,361,947 1,361,947 280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 823,952 823,952 290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 494,101 494,101 300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 921,936 –45,000 876,936 

General reduction ........................................................................................................................................................... [–45,000 ] 

310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 2,040,389 406,000 2,446,389 

FSRM to 100% max executable ..................................................................................................................................... [406,000 ] 

320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,414,753 4,414,753 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 41,725,992 362,700 42,088,692 MOBILIZATION 

544 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 549,142 549,142 340 READY RESERVE FORCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 310,805 310,805 360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 161,150 161,150 370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 120,338 120,338 390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 24,097 24,097 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,165,532 0 1,165,532 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 145,481 145,481 

410 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,637 9,637 420 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 149,687 149,687 430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 879,557 879,557 450 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 184,436 184,436 460 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 223,159 223,159 470 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 181,086 181,086 480 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 96,006 96,006 490 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 72,083 72,083 500 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 54,156 54,156 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 1,995,288 0 1,995,288 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 574,994 574,994 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

510 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,089,964 1,089,964 

530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 164,074 164,074 540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 418,350 418,350 

545 

580 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 167,106 167,106 600 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 333,556 333,556 610 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 663,690 663,690 650 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 705,087 705,087 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,116,821 0 4,116,821 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 49,003,633 362,700 49,366,333 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 873,320 873,320 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,094,187 1,094,187 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 314,182 314,182 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 98,136 98,136 050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 183,546 183,546 060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 832,636 832,636 070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,151,390 2,151,390 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,547,397 0 5,547,397 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

080 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 16,453 16,453 

090 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,144 1,144 100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 106,360 106,360 110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 46,096 46,096 120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 389,751 389,751 130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 201,662 201,662 140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 32,461 32,461 150 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24,217 24,217 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 818,144 0 818,144 

546 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 50,859 50,859 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 29,735 29,735 

170 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 386,375 386,375 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 466,969 0 466,969 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 6,832,510 0 6,832,510 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 569,584 569,584 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 6,902 6,902 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 109,776 109,776 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 538 538 050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 18,888 18,888 060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 574 574 070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,561 17,561 080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 121,070 121,070 090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 337 337 100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 23,964 23,964 110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 36,356 36,356 120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 103,562 103,562 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,009,112 0 1,009,112 

547 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,868 1,868 

140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 12,849 12,849 

160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3,177 3,177 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 17,894 0 17,894 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 1,027,006 0 1,027,006 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 99,173 99,173 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 19,430 19,430 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 39,962 39,962 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 101,829 101,829 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 260,394 0 260,394 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11,176 11,176 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 11,176 0 11,176 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 271,570 0 271,570 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,164,810 1,164,810 OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 758,178 25,000 783,178 

Increase for F–35 sustainment to accelerate depot component repair capability ....................................................... [25,000 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,509,027 1,509,027 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,323,330 1,323,330 

548 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 3,511,830 3,511,830 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 2,892,705 25,000 2,917,705 

Additional demo .............................................................................................................................................................. [25,000 ] 

060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 7,613,084 645,900 8,258,984 

Increase for JSTARS buy-back ........................................................................................................................................ [95,900 ] WSS to 100% executable ............................................................................................................................................... [550,000 ] 

070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,345,208 50,000 4,395,208 

Increase for JSTARS buy-back ........................................................................................................................................ [50,000 ] 

080 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5,989,215 5,989,215 090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 928,023 928,023 100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 1,080,956 1,080,956 110 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 879,032 879,032 130 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 183,777 183,777 140 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 404,072 404,072 170 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 187,375 187,375 180 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 529,902 529,902 190 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 329,474 329,474 200 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 166,024 166,024 210 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 723 723 220 US TRANSCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 535 535 918 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 156,800 156,800 

Procurement of 7 DABs for PACOM ............................................................................................................................... [156,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 33,797,280 902,700 34,699,980 MOBILIZATION 

230 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,307,695 1,307,695 

549 

240 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 144,417 144,417 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,452,112 0 1,452,112 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

280 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 133,187 133,187 

290 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 25,041 25,041 300 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 117,338 117,338 330 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 401,996 401,996 340 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 477,064 477,064 350 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 276,423 276,423 360 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 95,948 95,948 380 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 154,530 154,530 390 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4,132 4,132 400 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 223,150 223,150 410 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 209,497 209,497 420 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 59,908 59,908 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 2,178,214 0 2,178,214 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,222,456 1,222,456 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

430 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 681,788 681,788 

440 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 117,812 117,812 480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 953,102 953,102 490 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 358,389 358,389 500 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1,194,862 1,194,862 510 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 29,594 29,594 540 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 74,959 74,959 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,632,962 0 4,632,962 

550 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 42,060,568 902,700 42,963,268 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,853,437 1,853,437 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 205,369 205,369 030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 345,576 345,576 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 120,736 2,800 123,536 

Additional demo .............................................................................................................................................................. [2,800 ] 

050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 241,239 52,000 293,239 

WSS to 91% ................................................................................................................................................................... [52,000 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 385,922 385,922 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,152,279 54,800 3,207,079 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

070 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 71,188 71,188 

080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 19,429 19,429 

090 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 9,386 9,386 100 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 7,512 7,512 110 AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 440 440 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 107,955 0 107,955 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 3,260,234 54,800 3,315,034 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG 

551 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,619,940 1,600 2,621,540 

Restoring O&M associated with buyback of 3 PMAI JSTARS aircraft ........................................................................... [1,600 ] 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 623,265 623,265 030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 748,287 748,287 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 303,792 303,792 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 1,061,759 1,061,759 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 988,333 11,000 999,333 

PFAS Transfer ................................................................................................................................................................. [11,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,345,376 12,600 6,357,976 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

070 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45,711 45,711 

080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 36,535 36,535 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 82,246 0 82,246 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 6,427,622 12,600 6,440,222 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 430,215 2,500 432,715 

Operational logistics exercise elements ......................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CE2T2 ............................................................................................................................................ 602,186 602,186 040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 5,389,250 5,389,250 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,421,651 2,500 6,424,151 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 181,601 181,601 

060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 96,565 96,565 

552 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ............................................................................................... 370,583 370,583 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 648,749 0 648,749 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,645,192 15,645,192 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

080 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 166,131 166,131 

100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 625,633 625,633 110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,465,354 1,465,354 120 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 859,923 859,923 130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 2,106,930 2,106,930 150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 27,403 27,403 160 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 379,275 379,275 170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 207,537 207,537 180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 130,696 130,696 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 754,711 754,711 200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 789,175 63,600 852,775 

Additional civilian FTE ................................................................................................................................................... [18,600 ] New mission needs ........................................................................................................................................................ [45,000 ] 

220 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 34,951 34,951 230 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 553,329 553,329 250 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,892,284 50,000 2,942,284 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities ........................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............................................................................................ [40,000 ] 

260 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 499,817 499,817 280 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 70,035 70,035 290 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 1,519,655 46,000 1,565,655 

553 

CDC Health Study (sec. 312) ......................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Clearinghouse ................................................................................................................................................................. [1,000 ] Defense Environmental International Cooperations (DEIC) ........................................................................................... [1,000 ] Defense Fellows Program ............................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] DOD emerging contaminants ......................................................................................................................................... [1,000 ] DOD environmental resilience ........................................................................................................................................ [1,000 ] DOD Rewards Program Cut ............................................................................................................................................ [–3,000 ] Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative Increase ........................................................................................ [25,000 ] 

300 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 97,787 97,787 310 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 456,407 456,407 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 29,282,225 159,600 29,441,825 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 36,352,625 162,100 36,514,725 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 14,662 14,662 

SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF ............................................................................................. 14,662 0 14,662 

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID 

010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 107,663 107,663 

SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID ........................................................................................ 107,663 0 107,663 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT 

010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................ 335,240 335,240 

SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT ....................................................................................................... 335,240 0 335,240 DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND 

554 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ....................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 400,000 

SUBTOTAL DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND ......................................................................................... 400,000 0 400,000 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY 

060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 203,449 203,449 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................. 203,449 0 203,449 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY 

080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 329,253 329,253 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................. 329,253 0 329,253 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE 

100 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 296,808 –11,000 285,808 

PFAS Transfer ................................................................................................................................................................. [–11,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................ 296,808 –11,000 285,808 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE 

120 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 8,926 8,926 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ............................................................................................................ 8,926 0 8,926 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES 

140 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 212,346 212,346 

555 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ..................................................................................... 212,346 0 212,346 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 1,908,347 –11,000 1,897,347 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –216,520 –216,520 

Foreign Currency Fluctuation ......................................................................................................................................... [–267,000 ] 

JROTC .............................................................................................................................................................................. [5,480 ] Operation and Maintenance, Air Force DSMOA .............................................................................................................. [10,000 ] Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard DSMOA .............................................................................................. [15,000 ] Operation and Maintenance, Army DSMOA .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Operation and Maintenance, Navy DSMOA .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –216,520 –216,520 TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 –216,520 –216,520 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 199,469,636 881,680 200,351,316 

556 

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 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,179,339 1,179,339 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 25,983 25,983 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,189,916 2,189,916 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 188,609 188,609 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 120,787 120,787 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 3,867,286 3,867,286 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 550,068 550,068 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 195,873 195,873 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 109,560 109,560 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 60,807 60,807 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,992,222 5,992,222 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 160 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,036,454 1,036,454 180 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 248,796 248,796 190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 98,127 98,127 200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,550 2,550 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 15,876,377 0 15,876,377 MOBILIZATION 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 158,753 158,753 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 158,753 0 158,753 

557 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,074,270 1,074,270 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 712,230 712,230 

400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 44,168 44,168 410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 5,300 5,300 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 38,597 38,597 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 109,019 109,019 490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 191,786 191,786 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 2,175,370 0 2,175,370 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 18,210,500 0 18,210,500 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 20,700 20,700 

060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 700 700 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 20,487 20,487 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 41,887 0 41,887 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 41,887 0 41,887 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 42,519 42,519 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 778 778 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 12,093 12,093 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 708 708 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 28,135 28,135 

558 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 5,908 5,908 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 18,877 18,877 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 956 956 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 109,974 0 109,974 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 755 755 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 755 0 755 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 110,729 0 110,729 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY 

090 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,522,777 1,522,777 

100 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 137,732 137,732 110 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 71,922 71,922 120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 175,846 175,846 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,908,277 0 1,908,277 AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE 

130 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 527,554 527,554 

140 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 42,984 42,984 150 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 14,554 14,554 160 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 181,922 181,922 

559 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE .................................................................................................................................... 767,014 0 767,014 AFGHAN AIR FORCE 

170 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 942,279 942,279 

180 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 30,350 30,350 190 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 572,310 572,310 

200 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 277,191 277,191 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,822,130 0 1,822,130 AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES 

210 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 353,734 353,734 

220 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 43,132 43,132 230 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 151,790 151,790 

240 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 153,373 153,373 

SUBTOTAL AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES .................................................................................................................... 702,029 0 702,029 

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................................................................................................................... 5,199,450 0 5,199,450 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 435,507 435,507 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 800 800 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 9,394 9,394 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 193,384 193,384 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 173,053 173,053 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 3,524 3,524 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 60,219 60,219 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 942,960 942,960 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 20,236 20,236 

560 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,022,647 1,022,647 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 59,553 59,553 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 16,651 16,651 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 31,118 31,118 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 635,560 635,560 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 4,334 4,334 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 24,800 24,800 240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 355 355 280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 493,033 493,033 290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 12,780 12,780 310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 67,321 67,321 320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 211,394 211,394 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 4,418,623 0 4,418,623 

MOBILIZATION 

370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 12,902 12,902 

390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 165,000 165,000 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 177,902 0 177,902 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 51,138 51,138 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 51,138 0 51,138 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 16,076 16,076 

561 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

510 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4,145 4,145 

540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 7,503 7,503 

580 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 69,297 69,297 610 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 10,912 10,912 650 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 1,559 1,559 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 109,492 0 109,492 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 4,757,155 0 4,757,155 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 734,505 734,505 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 212,691 212,691 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 53,040 53,040 070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 23,047 23,047 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,023,283 0 1,023,283 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 30,459 30,459 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 30,459 0 30,459 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4,650 4,650 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 61,400 61,400 

170 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,108 2,108 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 68,158 0 68,158 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 1,121,900 0 1,121,900 

562 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 500 500 

030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 11,400 11,400 080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,737 13,737 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 25,637 0 25,637 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 25,637 0 25,637 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,550 2,550 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 795 795 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,345 0 3,345 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 3,345 0 3,345 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 166,274 166,274 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,492,580 1,492,580 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 110,237 110,237 040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 209,996 209,996 

563 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 92,412 92,412 060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 1,289,693 1,289,693 070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,355,264 2,355,264 080 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,141,718 1,141,718 090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 13,537 13,537 100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 224,713 224,713 110 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 17,353 17,353 120 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................... 36,098 36,098 130 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 385 385 140 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 38,966 38,966 170 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 725 725 180 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,056 2,056 190 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35,189 35,189 200 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 162,691 162,691 210 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19,000 19,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 7,408,887 0 7,408,887 

MOBILIZATION 

230 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,287,659 1,287,659 

240 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 107,064 107,064 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,394,723 0 1,394,723 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

280 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 300 300 

290 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 340 340 330 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 25,327 25,327 340 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 844 844 350 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 1,199 1,199 360 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,320 1,320 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 29,330 0 29,330 

564 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 51,108 51,108 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

430 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 154,485 154,485 

440 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 13,608 13,608 

480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4,814 4,814 490 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 131,123 131,123 500 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 97,471 97,471 540 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 240 240 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 452,849 0 452,849 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 9,285,789 0 9,285,789 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 51,000 51,000 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9,500 9,500 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 60,500 0 60,500 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 60,500 0 60,500 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3,560 3,560 

565 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12,310 12,310 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 15,870 0 15,870 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 15,870 0 15,870 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 28,671 28,671 

040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 3,733,161 3,733,161 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,761,832 0 3,761,832 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,944,813 1,944,813 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 1,781 1,781 

110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 21,723 21,723 130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 111,702 111,702 150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 127,023 127,023 170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 14,377 14,377 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 2,208,442 –550,000 1,658,442 

Coalition Support Funds ................................................................................................................................................. [–550,000 ] 

230 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 302,250 302,250 250 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 31,620 31,620 290 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 16,579 16,579 310 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 7,766 7,766 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 4,788,076 –550,000 4,238,076 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 8,549,908 –550,000 7,999,908 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 47,382,670 –550,000 46,832,670 

(567) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

568 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 140,689,301 –3,062,080 137,627,221 

End strength cut ................................................................................................................................................. [–993,200 ] Foreign Currency Fluctuation .............................................................................................................................. [–133,000 ] JROTC .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,220 Military Personnel Underexecution ...................................................................................................................... [–1,937,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 140,689,301 –3,062,080 137,627,221 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 7,533,090 7,533,090 SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................... 7,533,090 7,533,090 TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 148,222,391 –3,062,080 145,160,311 

569 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4,660,661 4,660,661 SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4,660,661 0 4,660,661 TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 4,660,661 0 4,660,661 

(571) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

572 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 Industrial Operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 59,002 59,002 020 Supply Management—Army ............................................................................................................................................. 99,763 99,763 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 59,002 0 59,002 SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 99,763 0 99,763 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

020 Supplies and Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 69,054 69,054 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................ 69,054 0 69,054 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

020 Supply Chain Management—Def ..................................................................................................................................... 48,096 48,096 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................................... 48,096 0 48,096 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 Working Capital Fund, DECA ............................................................................................................................................ 1,266,200 1,266,200 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................................... 1,266,200 0 1,266,200 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1,542,115 0 1,542,115 

573 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

1 Chem Demilitarization—O&M .......................................................................................................................................... 105,997 105,997 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 105,997 0 105,997 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

2 Chem Demilitarization—RDT&E ....................................................................................................................................... 886,728 886,728 

SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 886,728 0 886,728 

PROCUREMENT 

3 Chem Demilitarization—Proc ........................................................................................................................................... 1,091 1,091 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 1,091 0 1,091 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 993,816 0 993,816 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................................................................................................. 547,171 547,171 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 547,171 0 547,171 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM 

020 Drug Demand Reduction Program .................................................................................................................................... 117,900 117,900 

SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 117,900 0 117,900 

READINESS COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES 

040 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................................................................................................. 5,276 5,276 

SUBTOTAL READINESS COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................... 5,276 0 5,276 

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM 

030 National Guard Counter-Drug Program ............................................................................................................................ 117,178 117,178 

SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 117,178 0 117,178 

574 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 787,525 0 787,525 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 327,611 327,611 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 327,611 0 327,611 RDT&E 

020 Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 1,602 1,602 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,602 0 1,602 PROCUREMENT 

030 Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 60 60 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 60 0 60 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 329,273 0 329,273 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 In-House Care ................................................................................................................................................................... 9,738,569 9,738,569 020 Private Sector Care ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,103,735 15,103,735 030 Consolidated Health Support ............................................................................................................................................ 2,107,961 2,107,961 040 Information Management ................................................................................................................................................. 2,039,878 2,039,878 050 Management Activities ..................................................................................................................................................... 307,629 307,629 060 Education and Training .................................................................................................................................................... 756,778 2,500 759,278 

Specialized medical pilot program .......................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

575 

070 Base Operations/Communications .................................................................................................................................... 2,090,845 2,090,845 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 32,145,395 2,500 32,147,895 RDT&E 

080 R&D Research ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,386 11,386 

090 R&D Exploratry Development ............................................................................................................................................ 75,010 75,010 100 R&D Advanced Development ............................................................................................................................................ 275,258 275,258 110 R&D Demonstration/Validation ......................................................................................................................................... 117,529 117,529 120 R&D Engineering Development ......................................................................................................................................... 151,985 151,985 130 R&D Management and Support ....................................................................................................................................... 63,755 63,755 140 R&D Capabilities Enhancement ....................................................................................................................................... 15,714 15,714 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 710,637 0 710,637 PROCUREMENT 

150 PROC Initial Outfitting ..................................................................................................................................................... 33,056 33,056 

160 PROC Replacement & Modernization ............................................................................................................................... 343,424 343,424 180 PROC DoD Healthcare Management System Modernization ............................................................................................ 496,680 496,680 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 873,160 0 873,160 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 33,729,192 2,500 33,731,692 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 37,381,921 2,500 37,384,421 

576 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 Supply Management—Army ............................................................................................................................................. 6,600 6,600 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 6,600 0 6,600 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

020 Supplies and Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 8,590 8,590 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................ 8,590 0 8,590 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 15,190 0 15,190 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................................................................................................. 153,100 153,100 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 153,100 0 153,100 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 153,100 0 153,100 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 24,692 24,692 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 24,692 0 24,692 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 24,692 0 24,692 

577 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 In-House Care ................................................................................................................................................................... 72,627 72,627 020 Private Sector Care ........................................................................................................................................................... 277,066 277,066 030 Consolidated Health Support ............................................................................................................................................ 2,375 2,375 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 352,068 0 352,068 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 352,068 0 352,068 

COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) 

010 IRAQ .................................................................................................................................................................................. 850,000 850,000 020 SYRIA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 300,000 030 Other ................................................................................................................................................................................. 250,000 250,000 

SUBTOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) ............................................................................................ 1,400,000 0 1,400,000 TOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................... 1,400,000 0 1,400,000 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1,945,050 0 1,945,050 

(579) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

580 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ARMY ALABAMA Anniston Army Depot Weapon Maintenance Shop ....................................... 5,200 5,200 ARMY CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Multipurpose Range Complex .................................... 29,000 29,000 ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 77,000 77,000 ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Cyber Instructional Fac and Network Ctr .................. 99,000 99,000 ARMY GERMANY East Camp Grafenwoehr Mission Training Complex ......................................... 31,000 31,000 ARMY HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility, Incr 4 ...................... 105,000 105,000 ARMY HAWAII Wheeler Army Airfield Rotary wing parking apron ........................................ 0 50,000 50,000 ARMY HONDURAS Soto Cano AB Barracks ..................................................................... 21,000 21,000 ARMY INDIANA Crane Army Ammunition 

Activity 

Railcar Holding Area ................................................. 16,000 16,000 

ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Microgrid and power plant ........................................ 0 18,000 18,000 ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 32,000 32,000 ARMY KENTUCKY Fort Knox Digital Air/Ground Integration Range ........................ 26,000 26,000 ARMY KOREA Camp Tango Command and Control Facility .................................. 17,500 17,500 ARMY KUWAIT Camp Arifjan Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 44,000 44,000 ARMY NEW JERSEY Picatinny Arsenal Munitions Disassembly Complex ............................... 41,000 41,000 ARMY NEW MEXICO White Sands Missile 

Range 

Information Systems Facility ..................................... 40,000 40,000 

ARMY NEW YORK West Point Military Reservation Engineering Center .................................................... 95,000 95,000 

581 

ARMY NEW YORK West Point Military Reservation Parking Structure ....................................................... 65,000 65,000 ARMY NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Dining Facility ............................................................ 10,000 10,000 ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks Complex 3, Ph2 ............................. 52,000 52,000 ARMY TEXAS Fort Bliss Supply Support Activity ............................................. 24,000 24,000 ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood Supply Support Activity ............................................. 0 9,600 9,600 ARMY VIRGINIA Arlington National Cemetery Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion ..... 0 30,000 30,000 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Host Nation Support .................................................. 34,000 34,000 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 71,068 71,068 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 72,000 72,000 

ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 5,000 5,000 

SUBTOTAL ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,011,768 107,600 1,119,368 

NAVY NAVY ARIZONA Camp Navajo Missile Motor Magazines and U&SI .......................... 0 14,800 14,800 NAVY BAHAMAS Andros Island AUTEC Austere Quarters ............................................ 31,050 31,050 NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Fleet Maintenance Facility & TOC ............................. 26,340 26,340 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton 62 Area Mess Hall & Consolidated Warehouse ........ 0 71,700 71,700 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Supply Warehouse SOI-West ...................................... 0 16,600 16,600 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Potable Water Distribution Improvements ................. 47,230 47,230 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton AAV-ACV Maintenance & Warehouse Facility ............ 49,410 49,410 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Full Motion Trainer Facility ........................................ 10,670 10,670 NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton Electrical Upgrades ................................................... 4,020 4,020 NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado CMV–22B Airfield Improvements ............................... 77,780 77,780 NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F–35 Maintenance Hangar ........................................ 112,690 112,690 NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar F–35 Vertical Landing Pads and Taxiway ................ 20,480 20,480 NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar Airfield Security Improvements .................................. 11,500 11,500 

582 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Directed Energy Systems Intergration Lab ................ 22,150 22,150 NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego Harbor Drive Switching Station ................................. 48,440 48,440 NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego Pier 8 Replacement ................................................... 108,100 108,100 NAVY CALIFORNIA San Nicolas Island Missile Assembly Build & High Explosive Mag ......... 31,010 31,010 NAVY CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Missile Magazines ..................................................... 0 21,800 21,800 NAVY CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Causeway, Boat Channel & Turning Basin ............... 117,830 117,830 NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Naval Observatory Master Time Clocks & Operations Facility ................ 115,600 115,600 NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Support Facility .................................................. 82,350 82,350 NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Operational Training Facility Addition ............... 29,110 29,110 NAVY FLORIDA NAS Whiting Field Air Traffic Control Tower (North Field) ...................... 0 10,000 10,000 NAVY GEORGIA MCLB Albany Welding and Body Repair Shop Facility .................... 0 31,900 31,900 NAVY GERMANY Panzer Kaserne MARFOREUR HQ Modernization and Expansion ........ 43,950 43,950 NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas ACE Gym & Dining .................................................... 27,910 27,910 NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Earth Covered Magazines .......................................... 52,270 52,270 NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Ordnance Ops ............................................................ 22,020 22,020 NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Machine Gun Range .................................................. 141,287 –126,287 15,000 NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Unaccompanied Enlisted Housing ............................. 36,170 36,170 NAVY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Solid Waste Management Facility ............................. 85,000 85,000 NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Drydock Waterfront Facility ........................................ 45,000 45,000 NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Corrosion Control Hangar .......................................... 66,100 66,100 NAVY HAWAII Pearl City Water Transmission Line ........................................... 78,320 78,320 NAVY JAPAN Kadena AB Tactical Operations Center ........................................ 9,049 9,049 NAVY MAINE Kittery Extend Portal Crane Rail ........................................... 39,725 39,725 NAVY MAINE Kittery Dry Dock #1 Superflood Basin .................................. 109,960 109,960 NAVY MISSISSIPPI Naval Construction Battalion Center Expeditionary Combat Skills Student Berthing ......... 0 22,300 22,300 

583 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio BN Complex, Phase 2 .............................. 0 51,300 51,300 NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 133,970 –106,970 27,000 

NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

Flightline Utility Modernization .................................. 106,860 106,860 

NAVY PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Submarine Propulsor Manufacturing Support Fac .... 71,050 71,050 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Cryogenics Facility ..................................................... 0 6,300 6,300 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Recycling/Hazardous Waste Facility .......................... 9,517 9,517 NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Range Improvements & Modernization, Phase 2 ...... 35,190 35,190 NAVY UTAH Hill AFB D5 Missile Motor Receipt/Storage Facility ................ 105,520 105,520 NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Ships Maintenance Facility ....................................... 26,120 26,120 NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade, Phase 2 ............ 0 13,100 13,100 NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico TBS Fire Station ......................................................... 21,980 –21,980 0 NAVY WASHINGTON Bangor Pier and Maintenance Facility ................................... 88,960 88,960 NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Fleet Support Facility ................................................. 19,450 19,450 NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Next Generation Jammer Facility ............................... 7,930 7,930 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 0 25,000 25,000 

NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 28,579 28,579 

NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 185,542 185,542 

SUBTOTAL NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,543,189 29,563 2,572,752 

AIR FORCE AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A School Age Facility ......................................... 22,500 22,500 AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A CATM Range ................................................... 19,000 19,000 AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35 Aircraft Maintenance Unit Admin Facility ....... 6,800 6,800 AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35 Conventional Munitions Maintenance Fac ....... 15,500 15,500 AIR FORCE ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB AGE Facility ................................................................ 0 15,000 15,000AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A Squad Ops #6 ................................................ 17,000 17,000 AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A ADAL AMU B914 Sq 6 .................................... 23,000 23,000 

584 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F–35A Student Dormitory II ....................................... 28,000 28,000 AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F–35A Integrated Trng Center Academics Bldg ....... 34,863 34,863 AIR FORCE FLORIDA MacDill AFB KC135 Beddown Add Flight Simulator Training ....... 3,100 3,100 AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas Hayman Munitions Storage Igloos MSA 2 ................. 9,800 9,800 AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR—Cargo Pad with Taxiway Extension ................. 46,000 46,000 AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR—Maintenance Support Facility ......................... 4,700 4,700 AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Child Development Center ......................................... 0 13,000 13,000 AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad and EOD Range ......... 37,000 37,000 AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft Recap Complex, Inc. 2 ............. 154,000 –32,750 121,250 AIR FORCE MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB MIT-Lincoln Laboratory (West Lab CSL/MIF) ............. 225,000 –50,000 175,000 AIR FORCE NEBRASKA Offutt AFB Parking Lot, USSTRATCOM ......................................... 9,500 9,500 AIR FORCE NEVADA Creech AFB MQ–9 CPIP Operations & Command Center Fac. ..... 28,000 28,000 AIR FORCE NEVADA Creech AFB MQ–9 CPIP GCS Operations Facility ......................... 31,000 31,000 AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB CRH Simulator ........................................................... 5,900 5,900 AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB MQ–9 FTU Ops Facility .............................................. 85,000 85,000 AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Wyoming Gate Upgrade for Anti-terrorism Compliance. 0 7,000 7,000 AIR FORCE NEW YORK Rome Lab Anti-Terrorism Perimeter Security / Entry Control 

Point.

0 14,200 14,200 

AIR FORCE NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/AMU and Alert Fac ........ 66,000 66,000 AIR FORCE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB ADAL Intelligence Production Complex (NASIC) ........ 116,100 116,100 AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU/FTC Simulator Facility Ph 3 ................. 12,000 12,000 AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot Maintenance Hangar ......................... 81,000 81,000 AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot Fuel Maintenance Hangar ................. 85,000 85,000 AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid Personnel Deployment Processing Facility ................ 40,000 40,000 AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid Flightline Support Facilities ...................................... 30,400 30,400 AIR FORCE SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB CPIP MQ–9 MCE GROUP ............................................ 53,000 53,000 

585 

AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San AntonioLackland BMT Recruit Dormitory 6 ........................................... 25,000 25,000 AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Fuel System Maintenance Dock 2 Bay .......... 16,880 16,880 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Parking Apron ................................................. 27,431 27,431 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A AGE Facility .................................................... 12,449 12,449 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A ADAL Parts Store ............................................ 13,926 13,926 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A 6 Bay Hangar ................................................. 39,036 39,036 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Dorm ............................................................... 29,541 29,541 

AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A ADAL Conventional Munitions MX .................. 9,204 9,204 

AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB Composite Aircraft Antenna Calibration Fac ............ 0 26,000 26,000 AIR FORCE WASHINGTON White Bluff ADAL JPRA C2 Mission Support Facility .................... 0 14,000 14,000 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location TACMOR—Utilities and Infrastructure Support ........ 18,000 18,000 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 0 20,000 20,000 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 195,577 195,577 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 11,000 11,000 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ................... 38,500 38,500 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,725,707 26,450 1,752,157 

DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE-WIDE ALABAMA Anniston Army Depot Install microgrid ........................................................ 0 20,000 20,000 DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Clear AFS Long Range Discrim Radar Sys Complex Ph2 .......... 174,000 –44,000 130,000 

586 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Fort Greely Missile Field #1 Expansion ........................................ 8,000 8,000 DEFENSE-WIDE ALASKA Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson Operations Facility Replacement ............................... 14,000 14,000 DEFENSE-WIDE ARKANSAS Little Rock AFB Hydrant Fuel System Alterations ............................... 14,000 14,000 DEFENSE-WIDE BELGIUM U.S. Army Garrison Benelux (Chievres) Europe West District Superintendent’s Office ........... 14,305 14,305 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF EOD Facility—West ............................................ 3,547 3,547 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF Human Performance Training Center-West ....... 9,049 9,049 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF NSWG–1 Operations Support Facility ................. 25,172 25,172 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Close Quarters Combat Facility ......................... 12,768 12,768 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF ATC Applied Instruction Facility ......................... 14,819 14,819 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF ATC Training Facility .......................................... 18,329 18,329 DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA Defense Distribution 

Depot-Tracy 

Main Access Control Point Upgrades ........................ 18,800 18,800 

DEFENSE-WIDE CALIFORNIA NB Ventura County SNI Energy Storage System ....................................... 0 6,530 6,530 DEFENSE-WIDE COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Human Performance Training Center ................ 15,297 15,297 DEFENSE-WIDE COLORADO Fort Carson SOF Mountaineering Facility ...................................... 9,000 9,000 DEFENSE-WIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Battalion Complex, PH2 ............................................. 49,222 49,222 DEFENSE-WIDE DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonnier ECIP-install PV ground array .................................... 0 3,750 3,750 DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Baumholder SOF Joint Parachute Rigging Facility ........................ 11,504 11,504 DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Kaiserslautern AB Kaiserslautern Middle School .................................... 99,955 99,955 DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Inc. 8 .......................... 319,589 319,589 DEFENSE-WIDE GERMANY Weisbaden Clay Kaserne Elementary School ............................... 56,048 56,048 DEFENSE-WIDE GREECE NSA Souda Bay Energy management control systems (EMCS) .......... 0 2,230 2,230 DEFENSE-WIDE GUAM Naval Base Guam P–691 NBG 74 facilities automated controls ........... 0 4,634 4,634 DEFENSE-WIDE GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Working Dog Treatment Facility Replacement .......... 9,080 9,080 

587 

DEFENSE-WIDE HAWAII Bellows AFB Expand PV and provide energy resilience to fire 

crash rescue.

0 2,944 2,944 

DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Camp McTureous Bechtel Elementary School ........................................ 94,851 94,851 DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Iwakuni Fuel Pier ..................................................................... 33,200 33,200 DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Truck Unload Facilities .............................................. 21,400 21,400 DEFENSE-WIDE JAPAN Yokosuka Kinnick High School ................................................... 170,386 –130,386 40,000 DEFENSE-WIDE KANSAS Salina Training Center PV/Water Conservation & Energy Resilience ............. 0 3,500 3,500 DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell Ft Campbell Middle School ....................................... 62,634 62,634 DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Logistics Support Operations Facility ................ 5,435 5,435 DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Air/Ground Integ. Urban Live Fire Range .......... 9,091 9,091 DEFENSE-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF Multi-Use Helicopter Training Facility ............... 5,138 5,138 DEFENSE-WIDE LOUISIANA JRB NAS New Orleans Distribution Switchgear ............................................. 0 5,340 5,340 DEFENSE-WIDE MAINE Kittery Consolidated Warehouse Replacement ...................... 11,600 11,600 DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #2 Inc 4 ....................... 218,000 –26,400 191,600 DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #3 Inc 1 ....................... 99,000 99,000 DEFENSE-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade Mission Support Operations Warehouse Facility ....... 30,000 30,000 DEFENSE-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Phase 1 Inc. 2 ........ 213,600 –163,600 50,000 DEFENSE-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Phase 2 Inc. 1 ........ 110,000 110,000 DEFENSE-WIDE NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst Hot Cargo Hydrant System Replacement .................. 10,200 10,200 DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Replace Training Maze and Tower ..................... 12,109 12,109 DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF SERE Resistance Training Lab. Complex ........... 20,257 20,257 DEFENSE-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA New River Amb Care Center/Dental Clinic Replacement ........... 32,580 32,580 DEFENSE-WIDE OKLAHOMA McAlester Bulk Diesel System Replacement .............................. 7,000 7,000 DEFENSE-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA MCAS Beaufort Electrical hardening and black start CHP system ... 0 22,402 22,402 DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Camp Mabry Install microgrid ........................................................ 0 5,500 5,500 DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Joint Base San AntonioLackland Energy Aerospace Operations Facility ....................... 10,200 10,200 DEFENSE-WIDE TEXAS Red River Army Depot General Purpose Warehouse ...................................... 71,500 71,500 DEFENSE-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Ambulatory Care Center Addition/Alteration ............. 10,000 –10,000 0 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Dam Neck SOF Magazines .......................................................... 8,959 8,959 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort A.P. Hill Training Campus ....................................................... 11,734 11,734 

588 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Human Performance Training Center ........................ 6,127 6,127 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Humphreys Engineer Center Maintenance and Supply Facility .............................. 20,257 20,257 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Fuel Facilities Replacement ...................................... 6,900 6,900 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility Replacement ........... 5,800 5,800 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA NAS Oceana Super Flight Line Electrical Distribtion System 

(FLEDS).

0 2,520 2,520 

DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon North Village VACP & Fencing .................................. 12,200 12,200 DEFENSE-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Exterior Infrastruc. & Security Improvements ........... 23,650 23,650 DEFENSE-WIDE WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Refueling Facility ....................................................... 26,200 26,200 DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design—ERCIP ................................... 0 5,000 5,000 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 55,925 55,925 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 496 496 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 10,000 10,000 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 14,184 14,184 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 13,642 13,642 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 5,000 5,000 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Energy Resilience and Conserv. Invest. Prog. ........... 150,000 150,000 

589 

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 ................................................. 14,300 14,300 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERCIP Design ............................................................. 10,000 10,000 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Exercise Related Minor Construction ......................... 12,479 12,479 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 2,036 2,036 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning & Design .................................................... 42,705 42,705 DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 17,366 17,366 DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 55,699 55,699 

SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,693,324 –290,036 2,403,288 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

ALASKA Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson United States Property & Fiscal Office ..................... 27,000 27,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

ILLINOIS Marseilles Automated Record Fire Range ................................... 5,000 5,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

MONTANA Malta National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 15,000 15,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

NEVADA North Las Vegas National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 32,000 32,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

NEW HAMPSHIRE Pembroke National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 12,000 12,000 

590 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

NORTH DAKOTA Fargo National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 32,000 32,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

OHIO Camp Ravenna Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range .......... 7,400 7,400 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

OKLAHOMA Lexington Aircraft vehicle storage building ............................... 0 11,000 11,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

OREGON Boardman Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle hangar ................ 0 11,000 11,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

SOUTH DAKOTA Rapid City National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 15,000 15,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

TEXAS Houston Unheated vehicle storage (aircraft) .......................... 0 15,000 15,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

VIRGINIA Sandston Army aviation support facility ................................... 0 89,000 89,000 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 18,100 18,100 

ARMY NATIONAL 

GUARD 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 16,622 16,622 

SUBTOTAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .................................................................................................................................................. 180,122 126,000 306,122 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

CALIFORNIA Channel Islands ANGS Construct C–130J Flight Simulator Facility .............. 8,000 8,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Construct Addition to F–22 LO/CRF B3408 .............. 17,000 17,000 

591 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

ILLINOIS Gen. Wayne A. Downing 

Peoria International Airport 

Construct New Fire Crash/Rescue Station ................ 9,000 9,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

LOUISIANA JRB NAS New Orleans NORTHCOM—Construct Alert Apron .......................... 15,000 15,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

NEW YORK Francis S. Gabreski Airport Security Forces/Comm.Training Facility ..................... 20,000 20,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Replace Operations Training/Dining Hall .................. 8,000 8,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

PUERTO RICO Luis Munoz Marin International Hurricane Maria—Communications Facility ............. 0 15,000 15,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

PUERTO RICO Luis Munoz Marin International Airport Hurricane Maria—Maintenance Hangar ................... 0 35,000 35,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Construct Cyber Ops Facility ..................................... 10,000 10,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 0 4,000 4,000 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 23,626 23,626 

AIR NATIONAL 

GUARD 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 18,500 18,500 

SUBTOTAL AIR NATIONAL GUARD ...................................................................................................................................................... 129,126 54,000 183,126 

ARMY RESERVE ARMY RESERVE CALIFORNIA Barstow ECS Modified TEMF / Warehouse .............................. 34,000 34,000 ARMY RESERVE WISCONSIN Fort McCoy Transient Training Barracks ...................................... 23,000 23,000 ARMY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 2,064 2,064 

ARMY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 5,855 5,855 

SUBTOTAL ARMY RESERVE ................................................................................................................................................................ 64,919 0 64,919 

592 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

NAVY RESERVE NAVY RESERVE CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Reserve Training Center ............................................ 21,740 21,740 NAVY RESERVE GEORGIA Benning Reserve Training Center ............................................ 13,630 13,630 NAVY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,000 3,000 

NAVY RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,695 4,695 

SUBTOTAL NAVY RESERVE ................................................................................................................................................................ 43,065 0 43,065 

AIR FORCE RESERVE AIR FORCE RESERVE INDIANA Grissom ARB Aerial Port Facility ..................................................... 0 9,400 9,400 AIR FORCE RESERVE INDIANA Grissom ARB Add/Alter Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................... 12,100 12,100 AIR FORCE RESERVE MINNESOTA Minneapolis-St Paul IAP Small Arms Range ..................................................... 9,000 9,000 AIR FORCE RESERVE MISSISSIPPI Keesler AFB Aeromedical Staging Squadron Facility .................... 4,550 4,550 AIR FORCE RESERVE NEW YORK Niagara Falls IAP Physical Fitness Center ............................................. 14,000 14,000 AIR FORCE RESERVE TEXAS Fort Worth Munitions Training/Admin Facility ............................. 3,100 3,100 AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 0 5,000 5,000 

AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,055 4,055 

AIR FORCE RESERVE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,358 3,358 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE RESERVE ....................................................................................................................................................... 50,163 14,400 64,563 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

593 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment Program NATO Security Investment Program ........................... 171,064 171,064 

SUBTOTAL NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 171,064 0 171,064 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 8,612,447 67,977 8,680,424 

FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ARMY CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

GERMANY Baumholder Family Housing Improvements .................................. 32,000 32,000 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

ITALY Vicenza Family Housing New Construction ............................. 95,134 95,134 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New Construction Incr 3 .................. 85,000 85,000 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing Replacement Construction ............... 68,000 68,000 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

PUERTO RICO Fort Buchanan Family Housing Replacement Construction ............... 26,000 26,000 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

WISCONSIN Fort McCoy Family Housing New Construction ............................. 6,200 6,200 

CONSTRUCTION, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Family Housing P & D ............................................... 18,326 18,326 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, ARMY .................................................................................................................................................... 330,660 0 330,660 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 36,302 36,302 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 10,502 10,502 

594 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 15,842 15,842 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 408 408 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 75,530 75,530 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 57,872 57,872 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 161,252 161,252 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privitization Support .................................... 18,801 18,801 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 376,509 0 376,509 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS CONSTRUCTION, 

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen Housing PH III .............................. 83,441 83,441 

CONSTRUCTION, 

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Improvements, Washington DC ................................. 16,638 16,638 

595 

CONSTRUCTION, 

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

P&D Washington DC .................................................. 4,502 4,502 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ................................................................................................................... 104,581 0 104,581 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 60,252 60,252 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 16,395 16,395 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 50,870 50,870 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 148 148 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 16,261 16,261 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 62,515 62,515 

596 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 86,328 86,328 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization Support ................................... 21,767 21,767 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ......................................................................................... 314,536 0 314,536 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 75,247 75,247 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 3,199 3,199 

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................ 78,446 0 78,446 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization ................................................. 22,205 22,205 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 48,566 48,566 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 54,423 54,423 

597 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 13,669 13,669 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 30,645 30,645 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 2,171 2,171 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 15,832 15,832 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 129,763 129,763 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE .................................................................................................................. 317,274 0 317,274 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 4,100 4,100 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 416 416 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 106 106 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 13,046 13,046 

598 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 121 121 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 643 643 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 38,232 38,232 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 01 01 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 02 02 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 09 09 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 1,542 1,542 

OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 155 155 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................... 58,373 0 58,373 

IMPROVEMENT FUND 

599 

IMPROVEMENT FUND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Administrative Expenses—FHIF ................................ 1,653 1,653 

SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,653 0 1,653 

UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND UNACCMP HSG 

IMPRV FUND 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unaccompanied Housing 

Improvement Fund 

Administrative Expenses—UHIF ................................ 600 600 

SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND .......................................................................................................................................... 600 0 600 

TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,582,632 1,582,632 

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ARMY ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................. 62,796 62,796 NAVY NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Base Realignment & Closure .................................... 151,839 151,839 

AIR FORCE AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ................................ 52,903 52,903 

TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 267,538 267,538 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 10,462,617 67,977 10,530,594 

600 

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 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY ARMY BULGARIA Nevo Selo FOS EDI: Ammunition Holding Area .................................. 5,200 5,200 ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay OCO: High Value Detention Facility ........................... 69,000 –69,000 0 ARMY POLAND Drawsko Pomorski Training Area EDI: Staging Areas .................................................... 17,000 17,000 ARMY POLAND Powidz AB EDI: Rail Extension & Railhead ................................. 14,000 14,000 ARMY POLAND Powidz AB EDI: Ammunition Storage Facility .............................. 52,000 52,000 ARMY POLAND Powidz AB EDI: Bulk Fuel Storage .............................................. 21,000 21,000 ARMY POLAND Zagan Training Area EDI: Rail Extension and Railhead ............................. 6,400 6,400 ARMY POLAND Zagan Training Area EDI: Staging Areas .................................................... 34,000 34,000 ARMY ROMANIA Mihail Kogalniceanu FOS EDI: Explosives & Ammo Load/Unload Apron ............ 21,651 21,651 ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Planning and Design ......................................... 20,999 20,999 

SUBTOTAL ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 261,250 –69,000 192,250 

NAVY NAVY GREECE Souda Bay EDI: Marathi Logistics Support Center ...................... 6,200 6,200 NAVY GREECE Souda Bay EDI: Joint Mobility Processing Center ........................ 41,650 41,650 NAVY ITALY Sigonella EDI: P–8A Taxiway ..................................................... 66,050 66,050 NAVY SPAIN Rota EDI: Port Operations Facilities .................................. 21,590 21,590 NAVY UNITED KINGDOM Lossiemouth EDI: P–8 Base Improvements .................................... 79,130 79,130 NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Planning and Design ......................................... 12,700 12,700 

SUBTOTAL NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 227,320 0 227,320 

601 

AIR FORCE AIR FORCE GERMANY Ramstein AB EDI—KMC DABS-FEV/RH Storage Warehouses ......... 119,000 119,000 AIR FORCE NORWAY Rygge AS EDI—Construct Taxiway ............................................ 13,800 13,800 AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky AB EDI—Regional Munitions Storage Area .................... 59,000 59,000 AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM RAF Fairford EDI—Construct DABS-FEV Storage ........................... 87,000 87,000 AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM RAF Fairford EDI—Munitions Holding Area ................................... 19,000 19,000 AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI—Planning & Design Funds ................................ 48,000 48,000 

SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 345,800 0 345,800 

DEFENSE-WIDE DEFENSE-WIDE ESTONIA Unspecified Estonia EDI: SOF Training Facility .......................................... 9,600 9,600 DEFENSE-WIDE ESTONIA Unspecified Estonia EDI: SOF Operations Facility ...................................... 6,100 6,100 DEFENSE-WIDE QATAR Al Udeid OCO: Trans-Regional Logistics Complex ................... 60,000 60,000 DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

EDI: Planning and Design ......................................... 7,100 7,100 

DEFENSE-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning and Design ......................................... 4,250 4,250 

SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE ................................................................................................................................................................ 87,050 0 87,050 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 921,420 –69,000 852,420 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 921,420 –69,000 852,420 

(603) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

604 

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 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 136,090 0 136,090 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 11,017,078 0 11,017,078 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,862,825 0 1,862,825 Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,788,618 0 1,788,618 Federal salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................... 422,529 0 422,529 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 15,091,050 0 15,091,050 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,630,217 0 5,630,217 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 853,300 0 853,300 Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................................................................................... 30,000 –30,000 0 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,513,517 –30,000 6,483,517 

605 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 21,604,567 –30,000 21,574,567 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 21,740,657 –30,000 21,710,657 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 136,090 136,090 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 136,090 0 136,090 Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs and major alterations 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 794,049 794,049 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 113,888 –113,888 0 

Split into W76–1 and W76–2 lines .............................................................................................................. [–113,888 ] 

W76–1 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 0 48,888 48,888 

Complete W76–1 life extension .................................................................................................................... [48,888 ] 

W76–2 Warhead modification program .................................................................................................................. 0 65,000 65,000 

NPR Implementation ..................................................................................................................................... [65,000 ] 

W88 Alt 370 ............................................................................................................................................................. 304,285 304,285 

W80–4 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 654,766 654,766 

IW–1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53,000 53,000 

Total, Life extension programs and major alterations ................................................................................................. 1,919,988 0 1,919,988 Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 64,547 64,547 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 94,300 94,300 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 81,329 81,329 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 80,204 80,204 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 35,082 35,082 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 83,107 83,107 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 180,913 180,913 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 619,482 0 619,482 

606 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 56,000 56,000 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 512,916 512,916 

Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 38,129 38,129 

R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 216,582 216,582 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 300,736 300,736 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 1,068,363 0 1,068,363 

Strategic materials 

Uranium sustainment .............................................................................................................................................. 87,182 87,182 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 361,282 361,282 Tritium sustainment ................................................................................................................................................ 205,275 205,275 Lithium sustainment ............................................................................................................................................... 29,135 29,135 

Domestic uranium enrichment ................................................................................................................................ 100,704 100,704 

Strategic materials sustainment ............................................................................................................................. 218,794 218,794 

Total, Strategic materials ............................................................................................................................................... 1,002,372 0 1,002,372 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 4,666,205 0 4,666,205 

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) 

Science 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 57,710 57,710 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 95,057 95,057 

Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 131,000 131,000 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 32,544 32,544 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 77,553 77,553 

607 

Academic alliances and partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 53,364 53,364 Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments ................................................................................................ 117,632 117,632 

Total, Science .................................................................................................................................................................. 564,860 0 564,860 Engineering 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 43,226 43,226 Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 27,536 27,536 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 48,230 48,230 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 58,375 58,375 Stockpile Responsiveness ........................................................................................................................................ 34,000 34,000 

Total, Engineering ............................................................................................................................................................ 211,367 0 211,367 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22,434 22,434 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 17,397 17,397 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 51,453 51,453 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 8,310 8,310 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 319,333 319,333 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield ........................................................................................................ 418,927 0 418,927 

Advanced simulation and computing 

Advanced simulation and computing ..................................................................................................................... 656,401 656,401 Construction: 

18–D–670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling Equipment, LANL .................................................................. 24,000 24,000 18–D–620, Exascale Computing Facility Modernization Project, LLNL ......................................................... 23,000 23,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 47,000 0 47,000 

Total, Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................... 703,401 0 703,401 Advanced manufacturing 

Additive manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 17,447 17,447 Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 48,477 48,477 Process technology development ............................................................................................................................. 30,914 30,914 

608 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Advanced manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... 96,838 0 96,838 

Total, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,995,393 0 1,995,393 

Infrastructure and operations 

Operations of facilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 891,000 891,000 Safety and environmental operations .............................................................................................................................. 115,000 115,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities ............................................................................................................................... 365,000 365,000 Recapitalization: 

Infrastructure and safety ........................................................................................................................................ 431,631 431,631 Capability based investments ................................................................................................................................. 109,057 109,057 

Total, Recapitalization ..................................................................................................................................................... 540,688 0 540,688 

Program increase to address high-priority deferred maintenance 

Construction: 

19–D–670, 138kV Power Transmission System Replacement, NNSS ..................................................................... 6,000 6,000 19–D–660, Lithium Production Capability, Y–12 ................................................................................................... 19,000 19,000 18–D–650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS ...................................................................................................... 27,000 27,000 17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS ........................................................................................ 53,000 53,000 16–D–515, Albuquerque complex project ............................................................................................................... 47,953 47,953 06–D–141 Uranium processing facility Y–12, Oak Ridge, TN ............................................................................... 703,000 703,000 04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy research facility replacement project, LANL .............................................. 235,095 235,095 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,091,048 0 1,091,048 

Total, Infrastructure and operations ...................................................................................................................................... 3,002,736 0 3,002,736 

Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 176,617 176,617 

609 

Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 102,022 102,022 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 278,639 0 278,639 

Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 690,638 690,638 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 690,638 0 690,638 

Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 221,175 221,175 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 162,292 162,292 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 11,017,078 0 11,017,078 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global material security 

International nuclear security ................................................................................................................................. 46,339 46,339 Domestic radiological security ................................................................................................................................ 90,764 90,764 International radiological security ........................................................................................................................... 59,576 59,576 Nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence ......................................................................................................... 140,429 140,429 

Total, Global material security ....................................................................................................................................... 337,108 0 337,108 

Material management and minimization 

HEU reactor conversion ........................................................................................................................................... 98,300 98,300 Nuclear material removal ........................................................................................................................................ 32,925 32,925 Material disposition ................................................................................................................................................. 200,869 200,869 

Total, Material management & minimization ................................................................................................................ 332,094 0 332,094 Nonproliferation and arms control ................................................................................................................................... 129,703 129,703 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D .................................................................................................................... 456,095 456,095 

Nonproliferation Construction: 

610 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

18–D–150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project .................................................................................................. 59,000 59,000 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ................................................................................ 220,000 220,000 

Total, Nonproliferation construction .............................................................................................................................. 279,000 0 279,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,534,000 0 1,534,000 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 28,640 28,640 Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ....................................................................................................... 319,185 319,185 Use of prior year balances ........................................................................................................................................................ –19,000 –19,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,862,825 0 1,862,825 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 514,951 514,951 Columbia-Class reactor systems development ......................................................................................................................... 138,000 138,000 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 250,000 250,000 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 525,764 525,764 Construction: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0 

19–D–930, KS Overhead Piping ....................................................................................................................................... 10,994 10,994 17–D–911, BL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................ 13,200 13,200 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 287,000 287,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 311,194 0 311,194 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48,709 48,709 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,788,618 0 1,788,618 

Federal Salaries And Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 422,529 422,529 

611 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 422,529 0 422,529 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 

Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................................................................................... 89,577 89,577 Central plateau remediation ............................................................................................................................................ 562,473 562,473 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 5,121 5,121 Construction: 

18–D–404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage ............................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 0 1,000 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 658,171 0 658,171 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste Treatment Immobilization Plant Commissioning .................................................................................................. 15,000 15,000 Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ...................................................................................................... 677,460 677,460 Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP ..................................................................................... 56,053 56,053 

01–D–416 A-D WTP Subprojects A-D ........................................................................................................... 675,000 675,000 01–D–416 E—Pretreatment Facility ............................................................................................................ 15,000 15,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 746,053 0 746,053 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,438,513 0 1,438,513 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 ........................................................................................................................ 17,000 17,000 Solid waste stabilization and disposition ........................................................................................................................ 148,387 148,387 Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .......................................................................................... 137,739 137,739 Soil and water remediation—2035 ................................................................................................................................. 42,900 42,900 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,200 3,200 

612 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 349,226 0 349,226 NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,704 1,704 Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................ 15,000 15,000 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60,136 60,136 Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,600 2,600 Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 191,629 191,629 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 271,069 0 271,069 Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D 

OR-0041—D&D—Y–12 .......................................................................................................................................... 30,214 30,214 OR-0042—D&D—ORNL .......................................................................................................................................... 60,007 60,007 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 90,221 0 90,221 U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 45,000 45,000 OR cleanup and waste disposition 

OR cleanup and disposition .................................................................................................................................... 67,000 67,000 Construction: 

17–D–401 On-site waste disposal facility .................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 11,274 11,274 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 16,274 0 16,274 

Total, OR cleanup and waste disposition ...................................................................................................................... 83,274 0 83,274 OR community & regulatory support ................................................................................................................................ 4,711 4,711 

613 

OR technology development and deployment .................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 226,206 0 226,206 

Savannah River Sites: 

Nuclear Material Management ......................................................................................................................................... 351,331 351,331 Environmental Cleanup 

Environmental Cleanup ........................................................................................................................................... 166,105 166,105 Construction: 

18–D–402, Emergency Operations Center ..................................................................................................... 1,259 1,259 

Total, Environmental Cleanup ......................................................................................................................................... 167,364 0 167,364 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 4,749 4,749 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 805,686 805,686 Construction: 

18–D–401, SDU #8/9 ..................................................................................................................................... 37,450 37,450 17–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #7 ....................................................................................................... 41,243 41,243 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River Site .................................................................. 65,000 65,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 143,693 0 143,693 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,472,823 0 1,472,823 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 220,000 220,000 Central characterization project ....................................................................................................................................... 19,500 19,500 Critical Infrastructure Repair/Replacement ..................................................................................................................... 46,695 46,695 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................... 25,500 25,500 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP .................................................................... 84,212 84,212 15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .............................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 85,212 0 85,212 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 396,907 0 396,907 

614 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2019 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 300,000 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6,979 6,979 Minority Serving Institution Partnership ................................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 Safeguards and Security 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 14,023 14,023 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15,577 15,577 Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15,078 15,078 

Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 86,686 86,686 

Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 183,357 183,357 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 6,580 6,580 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3,133 3,133 

Total, Safeguards and Security ............................................................................................................................................... 324,434 0 324,434 Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 25,000 25,000 HQEF-0040—Excess Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 150,000 150,000 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,630,217 0 5,630,217 

Other Defense Activities 

Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 135,194 135,194 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 70,653 70,653 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 205,847 0 205,847 

Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 52,702 52,702 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 76,770 0 76,770 

615 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 254,378 254,378 Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 140,575 140,575 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 18,302 18,302 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 158,877 0 158,877 Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 48,484 48,484 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 96,793 96,793 

Project management oversight and Assessments ........................................................................................................... 8,412 8,412 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 153,689 0 153,689 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,739 5,739 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 855,300 0 855,300 

Rescission of prior year balances (OHA) .................................................................................................................................. –2,000 –2,000 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 853,300 0 853,300 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Yucca mountain and interim storage ....................................................................................................................................... 30,000 –30,000 0 

Program cut ...................................................................................................................................................................... [–30,000 ] 

Total, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................................................... 30,000 –30,000 0 

616 

Legislative Requirements 

Departmental Recommendations 

Six legislative proposals on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2019 were submitted as executive communications to the President of the Senate by the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Legislative Affairs of the Department of Defense and 

subsequently referred to the committee. Information on these executive communications appears below. These executive communications are available for review at the committee. 

Executive Communication No. EC–4563 

Dated March 14, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 14, 2018 

Executive Communication No. EC–4621 

Dated March 20, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 20, 2018 

Executive Communication No. EC–4658 

Dated April 10, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10, 2018 

Executive Communication No. EC–4784 

Dated April 11, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 11, 2018 

Executive Communication No. EC–4926 

Dated April 18, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 18, 2018 

Executive Communication No. EC–5213 

Dated May 21, 2018 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 21, 2018 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 passed by roll call 

vote, 25–2, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Blumenthal, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, and Peters. Opposed: Senators Gillibrand and Warren. 

The other 17 roll call votes on motions and amendments to the 

bill which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 

1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 in closed session 

because of classified and proprietary information expected to be 

discussed. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 18–7–2 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, 

Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Kaine, Warren, and Peters 

No Instruction: Senators Cruz and Graham 

617 

2. MOTION: To improve reimbursement by the Department of 

Defense of entities carrying out state vaccination programs in connection with vaccines provided to TRICARE covered beneficiaries. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, 

Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott 

3. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the Department of Defense from reducing per diem rates based on the duration of a temporary duty assignment or civilian travel. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators Rounds, Perdue, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, 

Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, and Reed 

4. MOTION: To include a provision that would establish White 

Sands National Park, abolish White Sands National Monument, 

and direct a land exchange of specific lands between the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 22–5 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, 

Perdue, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, 

Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, and Cruz 

5. MOTION: To include a provision that would prevent the obligation or expenditure of funds related to deployment of a low-yield 

nuclear warhead for a submarine-launched ballistic missile pending 

submission of a report from the Secretary of Defense related to 

cost, schedule, and program implications of the development of the 

W76–2 warhead. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11–16 

In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Scott, Nelson, and McCaskill 

6. MOTION: To include a provision that would modify the requirement in section 3116(c) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 for specific authorization by Congress before commencing certain stages of development of a low-yield nuclear weapon. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and 

Scott 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

618 

7. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to pursue a strategy with respect to national security launch that includes reusable launch vehicles. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17–10 

In favor: Senators McCain, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Reed, Nelson, 

McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Sasse, and Scott 

8. MOTION: To strike a provision that repealed certain energy 

source-specific requirements. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19–5–3 

In favor: Senators Fischer, Ernst, Perdue, Graham, Sasse, Scott, 

Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Cotton, and Cruz 

No Instruction: Senators Rounds, Tillis, and Sullivan 

9. MOTION: To repeal the authority to transfer certain veterans 

memorial objects to foreign governments without specific authorization in law. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–15 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

10. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the 

temporary transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United 

States for medical treatment that is not available at Guantanamo. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, 

Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and Scott 

11. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the Missile Defense Agency to commence a space-based intercept program 

notwithstanding the outcome of the Missile Defense Review. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–11 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Scott, Donnelly, and King 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

12. MOTION: To place conditions on future participation of the 

People’s Republic of China in any Rim of the Pacific naval exercise. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and 

Scott 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

619 

13. MOTION: To include a provision that would provide authority to procure up to six polar-class heavy icebreakers. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17–10 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, 

Graham, Sasse, Scott, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Donnelly, 

Hirono, King, Heinrich, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Tillis, Reed, 

McCaskill, Blumenthal, Kaine, and Warren 

14. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State 

and in consultation with the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide support for the stabilization activities of other Federal agencies. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 21–6 

In favor: Senators Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Cotton, Ernst, and 

Tillis 

15. MOTION: To include report language that directs the Department of Defense to implement the recommendations listed in the 

Government Accountability Office Report 18–206. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, and 

Scott 

16. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the use 

of funds for the exhibition or parade of military forces and hardware for review by the President to demonstrate military force outside of authorized military operations or activities on or after January 1, 2019. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–15 

In favor: Senators Ernst, Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Scott, 

McCaskill, and Donnelly 

17. MOTION: To include a provision that would waive the requirement that recreational vessels over 300 gross tons be inspected as if they were commercial vessels and require the Coast 

Guard to establish a large recreational vessel code to provide safety 

and construction standards for this category of vessels. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–17 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Sullivan, Cruz, Graham, Scott, and Nelson 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Ernst, Tillis, Perdue, Sasse, Reed, 

McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

620 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2019. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 

Æ