H. R. 2810—377 
power to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression, 
which will require— 
(A) enhancing United States military capability and 
capacity in Europe, including strong consideration of invest-
ments in increased permanently-stationed and continued 
rotational forces as well as the facilities and infrastructure 
necessary to support United States presence and training 
with its allies and partners; and 
(B) strengthening United States capability and capacity 
to counter malign Russian influence, including Russian 
hybrid warfare operations short of traditional armed con-
flict, malicious Russian cyber activities, and Russia’s use 
of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; 
(3) investments that support the security and stability of 
Europe, including the EDI, and support to European countries 
in further developing their security capabilities, are in the 
long-term national security interests of the United States, and 
as such, funds for such efforts should be included in the Presi-
dent’s base budget request for the Department of Defense in 
order to fully support United States combat capability in 
Europe, facilitate efficient planning and execution, and ensure 
budgetary transparency; 
(4) the United States should maintain an ironclad commit-
ment to its obligations under Article 5 of the North Atlantic 
Treaty, which declares that an ‘‘armed attack against one or 
more [NATO allies] shall be considered an attack against them 
all’’; 
(5) while NATO allies have made progress toward high 
levels of defense spending, it is important that all NATO allies 
fulfill their commitments to levels and composition of defense 
expenditures as agreed upon at the NATO 2014 Wales Summit 
and NATO 2016 Warsaw Summit in order to uphold their 
obligations under Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty to 
‘‘maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity 
to resist armed attack’’; 
(6) NATO allies should continue to coordinate defense 
investments to both improve deterrence against Russian aggres-
sion and more appropriately balance defense spending across 
the alliance; and 
(7) because the NATO alliance defends not only the common 
security of the United States and its NATO allies, but our 
common values as well, it is essential that all NATO allies 
uphold their obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty to 
‘‘safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of 
their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual 
liberty and the rule of law’’. 
SEC. 1234. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF UKRAINE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE. 
Section 1250 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1068), as amended 
by section 1237 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2494), is further 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (b), adding at the end the following new 
paragraphs:
H. R. 2810—378 
‘‘(12) Treatment of wounded Ukrainian soldiers in the 
United States in medical treatment facilities through the Secre-
tarial Designee Program, including transportation, lodging, 
meals, and other appropriate non-medical support in connection 
with such treatment, and education and training for Ukrainian 
healthcare specialists such that they can provide continuing 
care and rehabilitation services for wounded Ukrainian soldiers. 
‘‘(13) Air defense and coastal defense radars. 
‘‘(14) Naval mine and counter-mine capabilities. 
‘‘(15) Littoral-zone and coastal defense vessels.’’; 
(2) in subsection (c)— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$175,000,000 of the 
funds available for fiscal year 2017 pursuant to subsection 
(f)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘50 percent of the funds available 
for fiscal year 2018 pursuant to subsection (f)(3)’’; 
(B) in paragraph (2)— 
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, and potential 
opportunities for privatization’’ and inserting ‘‘, 
sustainment, and inventory management’’; and 
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting after ‘‘addi-
tional action is needed’’ the following: ‘‘and a descrip-
tion of the methodology used to evaluate whether 
Ukraine has made progress in defense institutional 
reforms relative to previously established goals and 
objectives’’; and 
(C) in paragraph (3)— 
(i) by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2017’’ and inserting 
‘‘fiscal year 2018’’; and 
(ii) by striking ‘‘, with not more than $100,000,000 
available for the purposes as follows for any particular 
country’’; 
(3) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2018, $350,000,000.’’; and 
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and 
inserting ‘‘December 31, 2020’’. 
SEC. 1235. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS RELATING TO 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPEN SKIES TREATY. 
(a) LIMITATION ON CONDUCT OF FLIGHTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to be appro-
priated by this Act or otherwise made available for any fiscal 
year after fiscal year 2017 for the Department of Defense 
for operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, or operation and 
maintenance, Air Force, may be obligated or expended to con-
duct any flight during such fiscal year for purposes of imple-
menting the Open Skies Treaty until the date that is seven 
days after the date on which the President submits to the 
appropriate congressional committees a plan described in para-
graph (2) with respect to such fiscal year. 
(2) PLAN DESCRIBED.—The plan described in this paragraph 
is a plan developed by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and the Director of National Intelligence, that contains 
a description of the objectives for all planned flights described 
in paragraph (1) during such fiscal year. 
(3) UPDATE.—To the extent necessary and appropriate, the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
H. R. 2810—379 
State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 
Director of National Intelligence, may update the plan described 
in paragraph (2) with respect to a fiscal year and submit 
the updated plan to the appropriate congressional committees. 
(4) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.— 
In this subsection, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional commit-
tees’’ means— 
(A) the congressional defense committees; and 
(B) the Select Committee on Intelligence and Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Perma-
nent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. 
(5) SUNSET.—The requirements of this subsection shall 
terminate on the date that is five years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act. 
(b) PROHIBITION ON ACTIVITIES TO MODIFY UNITED STATES AIR-
CRAFT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to be appro-
priated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 
2018 for research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, 
for arms control implementation (PE 0305145F) or procure-
ment, Air Force, for digital visual imaging system (BA–05, 
Line Item #1900) may be obligated or expended to carry out 
any activities to modify any United States aircraft for purposes 
of implementing the Open Skies Treaty until the Secretary 
of Defense submits to the appropriate congressional committees 
the certification described in paragraph (2) and the President 
submits to the appropriate congressional committees the certifi-
cation described in paragraph (3). 
(2) CERTIFICATION BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The certifi-
cation described in this paragraph is a certification that con-
tains a determination of the Secretary of Defense, without 
delegation, that modification of digital visual imaging systems 
in United States OC–135 aircraft under the Open Skies Treaty 
will provide superior digital imagery as compared to digital 
imagery that is available to the Department of Defense on 
a commercial basis. 
(3) CERTIFICATION BY PRESIDENT.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The certification described in this 
paragraph is a certification of the President that— 
(i) the President has imposed treaty violations 
responses and legal countermeasures on the Russian 
Federation for its violations of the Open Skies Treaty; 
and 
(ii) the President has fully informed the appro-
priate congressional committees of such responses and 
countermeasures. 
(B) DELEGATION.—The President may delegate the 
responsibility for making a certification under subpara-
graph (A) to the Secretary of the State. 
(4) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.— 
In this subsection, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional commit-
tees’’ means— 
(A) the congressional defense committees; and 
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives.
H. R. 2810—380 
(c) OPEN SKIES TREATY DEFINED.—In this section, the term 
‘‘Open Skies Treaty’’ means the Treaty on Open Skies, done at 
Helsinki March 24, 1992, and entered into force January 1, 2002. 
SEC. 1236. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPORTANCE OF NUCLEAR 
CAPABILITIES OF NATO. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) The Warsaw Summit Communique, issued on July 9, 
2016, by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (in this section 
referred to as ‘‘NATO’’) clearly defines the need for, and the 
importance of, the nuclear mission of NATO. 
(2) The Warsaw Summit Communique states— 
(A) with respect to the nuclear deterrence capability 
of NATO, ‘‘As a means to prevent conflict and war, credible 
deterrence and defence is essential. Therefore, deterrence 
and defence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear, 
conventional, and missile defence capabilities, remains a 
core element of our overall strategy. . . The fundamental 
purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, 
prevent coercion, and deter aggression. Nuclear weapons 
are unique. Any employment of nuclear weapons against 
NATO would fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict. 
The circumstances in which NATO might have to use 
nuclear weapons are extremely remote’’; 
(B) with respect to the nature of the nuclear deterrence 
posture of NATO, ‘‘NATO must continue to adapt its 
strategy in line with trends in the security environment– 
including with respect to capabilities and other measures 
required–to ensure that NATO’s overall deterrence and 
defence posture is capable of addressing potential adver-
saries’ doctrine and capabilities, and that it remains cred-
ible, flexible, resilient, and adaptable.’’; and 
(C) with respect to the importance of contributions 
to the nuclear deterrence mission from across the NATO 
alliance, ‘‘The strategic forces of the Alliance, particularly 
those of the United States, are the supreme guarantee 
of the security of the Allies. The independent strategic 
nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France have 
a deterrent role of their own and contribute to the overall 
security of the Alliance. These Allies’ separate centres of 
decision-making contribute to deterrence by complicating 
the calculations of potential adversaries. NATO’s nuclear 
deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ 
nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on 
capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies con-
cerned. These Allies will ensure that all components of 
NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effec-
tive. That requires sustained leadership focus and institu-
tional excellence for the nuclear deterrence mission and 
planning guidance aligned with 21st century requirements. 
The Alliance will ensure the broadest possible participation 
of Allies concerned in their agreed nuclear burden-sharing 
arrangements.’’. 
(3) Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in response to the 
advance policy questions for his Senate confirmation hearing 
on January 12, 2017, stated that—